Truths of discourse

"Truth is subjective." or "That's my truth, you can have yours." I just heard a philosophy debate on these statements, and them being among some of the most stupid, at least from a philosophical point of view. And somehow the argumentation kind of rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed that the debate was founded on lack of semantics and definitions, rather than about what the statements actually might mean. So the following is a short thought dump of my reasoning:

At first, the statements does kind of seem to defy the very definition of the words "true" and "subjective". But take statements like 2 + 2 is 4. Or B is the next letter from A in the alphabet. Both truths, but obviously those are not the same propositions. The first is an observable fact of the world. Something you can show to be true with pebbles. Universal truth? The later however is not fundamental to nature, but rather to a story/system we decided on collectively. B could as well have been the first letter of the alphabet. But both statements are still true, right? So some kinds of truths are somehow subjective or at least agreed upon. Truth based on axioms of narrative and discourse.

The definition of truth is sometimes said to be "that which is in accordance with fact or reality." Here it is actually in very definition, that there exists different truths. Fact or reality. Fact might very well be subjective when it is about the narratives of our society and cultural norms. So we then, at least, have universal truth and narrative truth.

What about scientific findings then, that must be universal truth? Scientific truth can't be subjective? But then in a way science is also subjective by definition. If scientific findings are a best guess or approximation as to how the world works. Then it is an approximated truth.

So there is at least three kinds of truth then, universal truth (facts of the universe, sometimes observable, sometimes hidden), scientific truth (theory from observations), narrative truth (logical conclusions from discourse).

So to return to the original statement. The reason they might be silly is not that they are wrong, but that they do not define which kinds of truths they are talking about. The universal truth of the universe cannot be subjective, but narrative and scientific truth could easily be, unless of course you think they are not actual truths. But then it really is about semantics again. A discussion of definitions of the word truth.

"No, truth always exists beyond perceptions! The truth doesn’t have to be agreed on or even known. The truth may never be known but the truth is the truth."

Then maybe look at it this way: Subjective means that something is influenced by personal opinion. So yes, semantically "subjective" and "truth" are opposites. But; Your axioms are subjective, but the truths build on those axioms are true in their context. True in the same way as scientific findings, based on data that might turn out to be wrong.