system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Truth is not relative. Perception is.

I've always taken the phrase "truth is relative" to be terrible semantics, because it seems that when people say this, they really mean that one's perception of reality is relative. If truth is defined as "that which is in accordance with fact or reality," we can still assume there is an objective reality. The fact that we may not be able to objectively perceive this in any meaningful way would not seem to have any bearing on the existence of a base reality.

I've also heard the phrase explained as meaning what is morally right/wrong for one person may not be for another. I would agree with this, but to me this would just mean that one has to take dynamic context into account when applying truth. Relativism has more to do with context and flawed perception than with negating objective truth.

TLDR: Our inability to objectively perceive base reality has no bearing on whether or not that truth/reality actually exists. "Truth is relative" is bad semantics.
gpt
The worst kind of semantics is the unnecessarily inflexible, prescriptivist kind. It's important to speak clearly and precisely, of course, but being overly strict about common-use phrasings that deviate from dictionary definitions works *against* effective communication, not toward it. "Truth is relative" isn't "bad" semantically, it's just a pithy way of expressing the exact concept you're describing: that some things are subjective, i.e. matters of perception. So we have both subjective and objective kinds of "truth" - which you've implicitly acknowledged by writing "objective truth", which would be redundant if that was the only kind.