Because sets of criteria can be thought of as being in layers. From a surface you dig down a little, but you can dig more, and more. The goal is to reach a limit.

Agreed. Please, among these historical agreements, demonstrate what objective reality was discovered.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...". If you're not American and do not know this reference, google the American declaration of independence." That is a time in history when one group made a collective decision that appeals to any type of provable objective code.

Yes, they made an appeal but I asked for provable appeal. Historically, we have always made appeals to objective moral law, this doesn't mean they were successful. It also doesn't mean that the decisions made did not benefit for more social cohesion.

For an objective moral law, you first need to demonstrate that social cohesion is an objective "right" or desire.

It is my guess that most constitutions for government make such appeals. Certainly with respect to many civil movements in history, groups of people have made collective decisions that appeal to objective codes.

You're right, but this is because it's assumed that what people desire is social cohesion. It's convoluted to first consider whether the majority of people desire freedom from pain and misery.

Consulting the relativity of morality doesn't aid the emotive momentum of civil rights movements. People are happy to roll with the prerequisite that murder is "wrong"; Most don't question relativity.

Importantly, (and please acknowledge this point) there is no functionality to an objective morality, even if it exists; We are free to ignore it, should we feel differently.

Some people would dictate that the bible objectively states that homosexuality is wrong. Even if they could (they can't) objectively demonstrate this, it doesn't benefit anyone; We can ignore it, save for the punishment of hellfire, should they be able to prove it (they can't).

I think the term "SJW" is an ad hominem attack propagated by assholes like Joe Rogan against people that are perhaps more prone to being emotive regarding their beliefs.

I guarantee you, if the views of "SJW's" were delivered in a calmer manner by arrogant men then they'd not get half the flack. It's not much to do with the topics at hand. It's oppressive.

I understand relativism as the referral of all judgments back to a set of criteria, the relativity arising in that your set of criteria differs from my set. But is that the limit?

Demonstrate why it's not.

Apparently the relativist stops there and allows as how it's a matter of preference, opinion, and therefore we on one side have no grounds beyond our personal views to condemn the other side.

Please demonstrate anytime in history where any one group of people have made a collective decision that appeals to any type of provable objective code.

If you can't, then how can you manage to type out paragraph after paragraph pertaining to, effectively, nothing? It's very straightforward. Any extended dialogue develops in the nuances of believing in an objective reality. If you can't first perceive and demonstrate that objective reality then stop waffling.