[Eisenstein]

That you assign me the responsibility of asking you to explain your assertion sheds a lot of light on this interaction.

Either rhetoric and discourse are unfamiliar to you (for instance, that a basic tenant is that one does not make a strong claim which acts as foundational evidence for their entire premise and then assume it to be taken as fact based on statement alone -- if that were true then 3rd graders would win all arguments by saying 'nuh-uh'), or you don't understand that responsibility can also apply to you in many cases.

[ImPostingOnHN]

You had (have?) your own premise that blameful postmortems were good -- the justification-free "yuh-huh!" matched by the justification-free "nuh-uh!" rebuttal, as you elegantly put it. After all, why provide more justification in rebutting a claim than was provided by the initial claimant in making it, unless they show a genuine interest in learning, or at least ask?

You aren't alone in your claim -- perhaps it is instinctive homo sapien thinking to believe punishment for mistakes & incidents always leads to fewer mistakes & incidents. Did you question those assumptions, though? When those assumptions were challenged, did you pause to think "Hmm, why DO I think that? Is it even true?"

There's perhaps an even deeper assumption here: you kept referring to blameful postmortems and punitive action as "accountability", which leads me to think that you might believe you can't have accountability for mistakes & incidents without punishing individuals. If this is indeed an assumption you hold, you should question whether it, too, is false.

The convenient part is, my existence isn't necessary for you to do any of this, so your personal preferences regarding my tone and my style won't affect your introspection and the resulting answers! :)