An interesting piece, even if I ultimately still disagree with you.

One question I want to ask is, whether you have questioned the ideological influences that are at the foundation of your case? For example, the idea that racism can be ‘hidden’ can be traced to the idea of ‘cultural hegemony’ that is a big part of 20th-century Western Marxist thinking. The idea that indiscriminate tolerance is bad and that ‘right wing’ ideas ought to be suppressed because of the uneven playing field is an extension of this tradition, first articulated by the Marxist thinker Herbert Marcuse in 1965. In short, the whole case you presented is Marxist in nature, hence for those who don’t accept Marxism, it is not going to be convincing.

Rawls was a very progressive theorist, and he always stood with the discriminated and disadvantaged. However, he was a liberal who held true to liberal values. I don’t think his work is any less valid just because it is incompatible with a Marxist perspective (as all liberal ideas are by definition). Liberalism and Marxism are fundamentally incompatible, so we liberals shouldn’t have to bend to a Marxist critique of Rawls. From a liberal perspective, Rawls didn’t make any mistakes here.