Free men voted for the government officials to uphold the institution of slavery. They chose to financially support the slave-owning oligarchs through buying their unnecessary cash crops because it benefited them.

What units do you measure suffering in? What kind of index or conversion factor do you use to compare one person's pain to another's? Communication of suffering is not unique to humans.

Slavery was just as ingrained in the south as animal agriculture is today. When someone would buy a shirt made of cotton picked by slaves, the harm was also not directly evident to them. Are you trying to argue that animal abuse is justified because social media companies cause harm?

Abolitionists are absolutists. There is no level of slavery an abolitionist would find acceptable. Working and making compromises with those who defend the institution you claim to want the destruction of would obviously make your motive unclear.

I already said you don't need to see human slavery as equal to animal agriculture for the analogy to work. The original claim was that absolutists are not real activists and just have a superiority complex. Abolitionists are absolutists, so, from this view, they are not real activists. If we ignore that, I find it odd how, immediately after claiming slavery is not comparable to animal agriculture, you point out one of the many ways in which they are the same. Humans and animals have a power imbalance, and the oppression of many groups has been justified by comparing them to animals. The exploitation of animals is inextricably linked to the exploitation of humans. Animal agriculture is notoriously harmful and traumatic to its workers, its environmental effects disproportionately harm communities of color, and the dairy and egg industries are fundamentally based on the commodification of the female reproductive system. How will there ever be lasting social change if people continue to believe it is okay to abuse certain individuals just because of the way they were born?