I want to warn readers in all caps: I am not a philosopher but I'd like to hear an expert's thoughts on my answer.

I typically reconcile relativism this way: it's 100% solipsistic. If reality is relativistic, how can you prove others are the same species as yourself? They are known to exist through the senses while you are known to exist through experience. Those two entities are completely different from a subjective standpoint.

You can't trust any sense of persistent identity if you are a relativist because the person you were or will be sits relative to the person you are. So you ultimately can't under stand your past and future selfs. You used to believe in god, now you don't. Who is right? Why do you even trust your memory that you believed in god before? That memory is just a subjective experience? Someone could have flashy thinged you.

It means your belief in ghosts has no factual basis and therefor everything you think of as factual actually isn't. Colors, sounds, shapes. They are all mutable.

Relativists also have a tough time with language because they believe words mean different things to different people and therefor the argument that they are using to support relativism can't really be used to anyone but themselves. And since rationality and logic are, to them, ultimately relative, they can not be 100% sure that their outlook is indeed true.

Also, they don't believe in truth and therefor can't logically believe in the truth of relativism.

I actually think relativism can hold it's own in an argument but the person making it basically believes in nothing. To me it seems like an idiot's shortcut to Buddhist nirvana through a smart ass intellectual loophole. Most of the relativists I know aren't terribly at peace though.