I guess you could also ask whether the ends justify the means, and whether compromising our principles in order to get things done is morally acceptable at all. But that’s way too abstract. I’m not really talking about the ends here (I don’t think I actually specify what the ends are other than vague language about social justice and equality) so much as I am the means — because you’re right. The goalposts keep moving, which I think is a good thing in the long term, but makes the short term slightly more challenging. I long for the day when BLM isn’t even necessary. But I tend to believe change happens best when cultural issues become normalized rather than politicized, because the backlash from our political opponents will galvanize the right jut as much (if not more so) than we inspire our own base. When that happens, we aren’t reaching the people we need to if we’re going to get anything done — our agenda becomes a self-serving circle, and the gridlock keeps us at each other’s throats, pushing back and forth, and wasting a ridiculous amount of resources trying to undermine the opposition. And sure, this notion might be idealistic in the extreme, but it’s also practical in the sense that if we’re going to advance our agenda, we need to be able to compromise our own ideology enough that we can gain the support we need to acquire the political power necessary to do so, without losing the support of the liberal base who might reject a candidate because she isn’t as culturally left-wing as they want her to be. So I guess what I’m saying is that our means aren’t good enough given the current field of leftist political thought, and because of that failure, right now the ends are beyond our control.