If nothing is true except relative to a framework, that claim has to survive being judged by its own rule.
“That’s just true for you” gets used constantly in casual argument, often as a way to end a disagreement rather than resolve it, which makes relativism sound like an excuse rather than a position anyone actually defends carefully.
Philosophically, relativism holds that properties like being true, being morally good, or being epistemically justified don’t belong to a claim outright, only relative to a framework of assessment: a culture’s norms, an era’s science, an individual’s standards. And a framework’s authority doesn’t extend past the context that produced it. Moral relativism applies this to ethics; epistemic relativism applies it to what counts as rational or justified belief itself.
The position faces a standing self-reference problem. If all truth is relative to a framework, the claim “all truth is relative” must itself be either an exception to its own rule, or merely relatively true, in which case it carries no more authority than any framework’s proposition that rejects it outright.
Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Relativism” (plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism).