Okay, now that I've had time to read a digest.

I think I agree in principle with what I think the core argument is. That liberalism carried to extreme can just be excuses or a limiting of speech and thought.

Despite the fact that if pressed I would describe myself as liberal, I do not agree with this extreme form of liberalism. But I think that problem is if you identify yourself with an ideology (of any stripe). In this case, you set yourself up against both real and imagined enemies (in the case of liberal ideology, the fear of offence), and you end up being defined by what you oppose rather than what you stand for.

So, I think in general I agree in part with you, but I wouldn't say that the extreme represents best the philosophy. I would also argue that it is not even the dominant force, only the most vocal.