>Ok, but expressing disagreeability in these ways in most cases doesn't lead to any sort of productive change because only a tiny fraction of people are mature enough to respond without defensiveness and actually admit wrongdoing. Even if it is the catalyst for an eventual change of heart/behavior, that is primarily an internal process. If blame, shame, and condemnation were efficient methods of progressing humanity, we would expect to see modern governmental systems be productive, but instead they become weighed down by the morass of ego struggles, where even if someone wants to admit to having been wrong, they won't to maintain pride in the face of being condemned.

He who does not blame, approves. This is a maxim of law. If someone won't admit to be wrong I'm not there to make them admit, all I can do is point out their fault, the rest is up to them. 

>This may be part of the crux of our disagreement. Morality is most effective for what I would term the adolescent stage of humanity (which many never get beyond, even in old age.) Underneath imposed moralization, there is only consequence on deep levels. That is, if one performs an "immoral" act, it is my belief that the "punishment" doled thereto is automatic & integral, like the laws of physics. Imposing additional consequences on top is an artifice.

I didn't express anything like that, all I expressed was the obvious rationale of the above maxim, so exactly what are you disagreeing with when I never talked or insinuated imposing oneself.

>That helps me understand how you choose to use the tool of condemnation better. I would defend to the death your right to approach things in this way, even though I find it to be relatively inefficient.

Redemption isn't a piece of cake, and nobody can redeem themselves until they have admitted to the wrong that condemned them, and if you don't condemn such a wrong you are allowing it. You are your brothers keeper.

>The thing is, in the next bull market, there is bound to be great abundance here again. I think you will see that (some) people stop trying to milk every last drop out of vote buying and selling to become more generous once again. Will your condemnation help them see the light? Perhaps so, and I honor your right to approach things that way.

I'd be weary of their generosity, I'd be very weary of people who are quick to sing a different tune and fast to ask us to forget especially so if they have made no gestures seeking forgiveness because it leaves the impression that they didn't think much, if anything, of what they did and will soon resort to the same kind of dishonesty and hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy after all because the only reason they continue to vote sell and vote buy is because people are still manually curating, if everyone delegated to bots there would be nothing to promote for, no reason to engage and no audience to consume. If you don't think them capable of reasoning or least admitting their mistake, then what value are they to you, or anyone else, least to themselves?