"That's why i said, as much as possible. of course liberalism involves a conception of the good, including freedom, tolerance, and diversity, but what's the alternative? Really, now. oppression, intolerance, uniformity? That what you'd advocate?"
You begin by saying thatyou are for pluralism, now you say that if you don't promulgate the liberal vision of the good life--even as you qualify your own support so we don't really know whether you are supporting the liberal vision of the good-- you can only be in favor of oppression, intolerance, uniformity.
So that should intimidate anyone from pointing to the obvious negative consequences of the liberal vision of the good life-- social isolation, alienation, troubling emptiness (see Robert C Bishop The Philosophy of the Social Sciences, drawing on Charles Taylor and Ch Guignon).
Saying there's no good alternative is only a form of social pessimism. This kind of dogmatic liberalism only opens the door to relativistic attitude towards (Christian or Islamic) fundamentalism and Jacobinism.
Moreover, freedom, tolerance and diversity not only not incompatible with but the social forms through which oppression realizes itself on a social scale--that is, the collective possession of workers by employers.Or haven't you read chapters 6,22-4 of Capital, volume one?
Rakesh