Here is an adjacent argument to the one you gave:

1. Some people think the election was fixed
2. Some people think the election was fair

Therefore, there is no "objective truth" to whether the election was fair or fixed.

Moral of the story, disagreement alone does not entail a lack of objective truth. But the post was not about moral disagreement, it was about moral progress.

Moral relativists have a hard time explaining why we should have moral progress. The moral relativist will argue that any action whatsoever will be a good action if there is a certain group consensus. So why should we fight for a more fair and equitable society if the society we have now is *exactly * as morally good as any other system we could enact? Even worse, if the majority of people in your situation believe that something unjust is the right thing to do, then protesting against them is morally wrong.

You're correct on your judgment but your opinion stems from a different social stance on the underlying issue.

(that sounded really pedantic and it was not my intention)

Morality is a human creation. By default, nothing is wrong or right, until a human mind, be it an individual or colective one, analyse it and evaluate it.

This does not mean you can not view something as being immoral while others do or understand it as not a moral concern. This difference of understandingb is what moves any subject into the moral/immoral spectrum.