>there would be no point in discussing ethical issues at all if moral relativism were correct (...) you wouldn't have bothered to post a comment at all if you were the nihilist you are posing as

This is wrong on several levels, including practical and philosophical (and those aspects of it have been covered a lot in moral philosophy).

For starters, whether morality is relative or objective has no bearing at all to whether it exists as a practical force in the human world - and thus whether it makes total practical sense to study it, shape it, apply it, benefit from it, use it to make things work smoother or more to your liking, and so on.

(Not to mention how it also makes sense to examine it, document it, and discuss it, from a curiosity or historical interest perspective, even if it doesn't concern one directly as a practical matter. People do study the morality of other historical periods or distant societies, for example, even if it has no impact on their life in their society).

Note that there are several other things for which exactly the same thing applies: religion, laws, taboos, and so on, even art and fashion.

>you wouldn't have bothered to post a comment at all if you were the nihilist you are posing as

Rejecting natural rights and understanding that rights are historical constructions doesn't mean one is disintered in rights.

I am very much interested in my right to my property, for example, and will vote, advocate, protest, demonstrate, etc, to maintain it.

I don't have to believe there's some inherent natural "right to property" for that. Just that I find the legal enforcement of one beneficial to me, and that I'd rather live in a society where it is enforced, as opposed to one where it's not.

it sounds like what you are interested in is negotiating mutually beneficial bargains with people, then, or manipulating public opinion in your favor, by applying the currently fashionable ethical norms (or at least appearing to do so) and attempting to shape them to your liking

in the former case, you don't seem to be offering to make any concessions (and in any case, how could you, in a public forum like this), and in the latter case, it seems like it would be in people's best interests to close their ears to you except when your arguments are factual (as opposed to normative); and possibly even then, if their interests are likely to run counter to yours, because selective reporting of facts can manipulate people to act against their own interests just as effectively as outright lies

that's what i mean by 'there would be no point in discussing ethical issues at all if moral relativism were correct'. there is certainly a point in negotiating agreements, or even evaluating who is likely to fulfill their negotiated commitments, but that isn't the same thing as discussing questions of ethics

attempting to return to the substantive questions, perhaps we would do well to promote pseudonymous and even anonymous online interaction (especially for media likely to be used by edgy and troubled teenagers) and not grant governments the ability to eliminate facts from the historical record piecemeal, like beria editing stalin's opponents out of photos