But reality is built on principles. Seeking to align reality with our principles is why life is less shitty now than it was in the 60s, or the 1910s, or the 1800s.

And dogmatically sticking to principles in ignorance of reality is why we are still contending with so much crap in our lives to this day.

Sometimes we are going to need to deviate from principle. Because reality demands it, and shying away from it leads to worse outcomes.

Accepting the 'mess' as it is is nothing but stagnation and conservatism (in the realest sense, not in the 'reactionary chud' sense).

I said literally nothing about accepting the mess. You are completely off the mark with this comment.

I don't necessarily disagree with the (hoho) principle of this, but that doesn't mean that those things should be seen as 'not bad'. They are bad. But they're a necessary evil, at best, and one should expect backlash to them, and such backlash is not inherently unreasonable, even if it is the least bad solution available at the time.

If that backlash consistently prevents action to improve people's lives, then it becomes its own evil.

Deviation from principle should be recognised as what it is, unfortunate but sometimes temporarily necessary because we do not live in a perfect world. It shouldn't be permanent. But yes we do sometimes have to take less-tha-perfect actions.

Even if it's not the same in practice, that the principle is wrong should result in us seeking alternate paths around such solutions. Allowing bad principle to take root only ensures that it will remain, and torment future generations. I don't want to live in a society that's no longer racist against black people, but has then decided that those of Nepalese descent are just fundamentally disruptive to certain parts of 'our' society.

You are making a whole bunch of assumptions about my position here. That any deviation from a pure principle is going to become permanent, or that I'd support it becoming permanent. And that is just not what I'm arguing for.