It's very common to hear philosophers (or at least conservative identitarians) talk about relativism, which they say is the idea that truth is subjective, and explain that it can't be true because it posits an objective claim about the nature of truth. The problem is: if that's your definition of relativism, then there are so few relativists that we shouldn't bother refuting the idea, any more than we should make videos refuting the idea that Zeus exists.
I don't think that's the definition that most of the people who make that argument actually use for the term in practice, nor is it the one I use. Most people believe that in certain areas, there are no objectively correct standards for judgement (this is a very common position in art and game design), but almost no one would say that there are no objective facts. And it's not inconsistent because the delimiter is clear: facts, not value judgements.
Of course, if said philosophers were to use a more realistic definition of relativism, they would have to admit that they themselves are relativists in many ways.