"This is my truth"

[SnackTime]

Originally Posted by SnackTime

Thanks for this post! I have seen the phrase "This is My truth" or "this is true to me" used MANY times (online and in real time). Hell, I have even used the phrase before. Of course, my thought process emphasizes the ""MY" in that phrase.

To me, the phrases "I believe" and "this is my truth" are the same. It comes from a personal side. I do not find either statement to be judgemental. Again, the emphasis is based on that particular individual.

I would also like to add...There are times where we over analyze things and do not see where the emphasis is placed by the individual

[DapperButch]

It is kind of wild that one phrase can have such dramatically different interpretations, isn't it?

Isn't this kind of unusual?

Darn, if I was one who used this term I think I'd stop using it or clarify it (at least in the written word where you have no body language, facial expressions, inflections in speech, etc.), because people would have such different interpretations as to what I was saying!

[SnackTime]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

It is kind of wild that one phrase can have such dramatically different interpretations, isn't it?

Isn't this kind of unusual?

Darn, if I was one who used this term I think I'd stop using it or clarify it (at least in the written word where you have no body language, facial expressions, inflections in speech, etc.), because people would have such different interpretations as to what I was saying!

I don't see it as "one phrase can have such a dramatically different interpretation". As I stated before, if one looks at the phrase AS IT IS typed "My truth" or "this is true to Me" one will see that it is coming from a personal level.

Why stop using the phrase? I personally do not think that it needs clarification(when it comes to "I believe" or "My truth..".). I take the phrase as it is coming from a personal level. In my opinion, being able to see someone's body language or facial expression does not always matter when I am reading from the "My" truth perspective.

I have also noticed there have been times that the post is not thoroughly read. Do not get me wrong, I have been guilty of it also. That is why I try to thoroughly read and perhaps re-read the post to make sure I did not miss anything. Of course, I have not seen it in this particular thread, but I have in others.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by SnackTime

I don't see it as "one phrase can have such a dramatically different interpretation". As I stated before, if one looks at the phrase AS IT IS typed "My truth" or "this is true to Me" one will see that it is coming from a personal level.

Why stop using the phrase? I personally do not think that it needs clarification(when it comes to "I believe" or "My truth..".). I take the phrase as it is coming from a personal level. In my opinion, being able to see someone's body language or facial expression does not always matter when I am reading from the "My" truth perspective.

I have also noticed there have been times that the post is not thoroughly read. Do not get me wrong, I have been guilty of it also. That is why I try to thoroughly read and perhaps re-read the post to make sure I did not miss anything. Of course, I have not seen it in this particular thread, but I have in others.

Hey, Snacktime.

Please know I am not being critical of the phrase. I am just wading through my thoughts on it.

It seems to me that some people read a defensive posture behind the statement, when a person may mean nothing more than, "I believe".

That's all I am saying.

-------------
ETA: I am thinking that some folks do not see "This is my truth" as meaning the exact same thing as "this is true for me". I personally don't. I don't know what people mean. Hence the reason I started the thread.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

It is kind of wild that one phrase can have such dramatically different interpretations, isn't it?

Isn't this kind of unusual?

Darn, if I was one who used this term I think I'd stop using it or clarify it (at least in the written word where you have no body language, facial expressions, inflections in speech, etc.), because people would have such different interpretations as to what I was saying!

I think it *is* the kind of phrase that can have multiple interpretations.

But I don't think *that* is unusual at all.

We're forever discussing, debating and delineating the most common of phrases and identities here on BFP and in the broader world.

I think some people use the phrase "this is my truth" as way of being emphatic (or dramatic), as a colloquial exclamation point.

And I think other people use it to describe something (a belief or an opinion) that is deeply tied to their identity or experience; a thought that is hardwired in to their identity: physically, emotionally and rationally.

I also think the people who use it this way use the phrase "my truth" to indicate that they recognise it may or may not be a universal truth, but to emphasize that it is very true/real for them personally.

[Chancie]

Originally Posted by Ms. Sparkle

<snip>

And I think other people use it to describe something (a belief or an opinion) that is deeply tied to their identity or experience; a thought that is hardwired in to their identity: physically, emotionally and rationally.

I also think the people who use it this way use the phrase "my truth" to indicate that they recognise it may or may not be a universal truth, but to emphasize that it is very true/real for them personally.

This exactly what I hear when someone says, 'This is my truth'.

[gaea]

Wow a simple question has turned into quite the conversation piece...

For me saying "My" Truth" putting the emphasis on the word "my" as i have seen in other responses...It is about who i am as a person, respecting my self as well as others..

My Truth, I have 3 adult children, this may not be true for others

My Truth, i wear many many hats in this world from being a mother to my title at work to how i spend my free time...

The truth of my life isn't necessarily yours however together we can make the world a better place.

There are a ton of ways to use this phrase...

For me its personal, not guarded and in no way saying "back off", its simple actually.(for me anyway)

[tapu]

A little late to the discussion, but DapperButch, the reason it "sounds funny" to you is that the word truth in that statement is used in a way that doesn't match most people's meaning for it.

Generally, truth is an absolute, and appears with the: The new usage, exemplified by my truth, your truth, contradicts the semantic feature of truth we're all used to, that it's an absolute.

I see it used a few ways, mentioned earlier in this thread: both "it's what I believe and you can't dissuade me; and "it's what is true about/for me" (when the situation is a subjective one, usually).

[Jett]

What is true for one person may not be true for another, this "is my truth" to me means it is that persons perspective/belief/reality/situation... and simultaneously it acknowledges it may not be another persons.

I haven't seen it used to shut-down a conversation, but can imagine it could be used to say "you're not going to change my mind", or that a person is wasting their breath arguing what ever "truth" is being referenced in the conversation.

*shrugs*

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Star Anise

Although in saying that, I just want to add that I do agree that saying "this is my truth" is sometimes used to shut down a conversation, or rebuff confrontational questions because it is very difficult to argue with someones subjective experience.

I haven't seen this myself, to the best of my recollection, but I do see where it could happen. Kind of like the stalemate in the conversation....when all sides have expressed their thoughts/feelings/etc and none of them have the wherewithall to say "I accept your pov and let's agree to disagree".

I've had folks try to pin me down one way or another in a conversation and sometimes, the answer they are looking for just isn't there. So, there may come a time when I feel that all I can say is "this is what I know" or "this is my truth". When I do that, I'm not saying that their truth is invalid or that one is better than the other. I'm saying it's MINE, so keeps your mitts off, bud. Respect that I have the right to have that mindset or opinion. You don't have to agree, but don't try to oppress me with your opinion either.

For the most part, I'm very much a 'if it doesn't hurt anyone and it rocks your boat, then get to it' kind of person. As long as your thoughts and feelings don't lead to hurtful actions, I'm good. I wish more people were like me.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Gemme

I haven't seen this myself, to the best of my recollection, but I do see where it could happen. Kind of like the stalemate in the conversation....when all sides have expressed their thoughts/feelings/etc and none of them have the wherewithall to say "I accept your pov and let's agree to disagree".

I've had folks try to pin me down one way or another in a conversation and sometimes, the answer they are looking for just isn't there. So, there may come a time when I feel that all I can say is "this is what I know" or "this is my truth". When I do that, I'm not saying that their truth is invalid or that one is better than the other. I'm saying it's MINE, so keeps your mitts off, bud. Respect that I have the right to have that mindset or opinion. You don't have to agree, but don't try to oppress me with your opinion either.

For the most part, I'm very much a 'if it doesn't hurt anyone and it rocks your boat, then get to it' kind of person. As long as your thoughts and feelings don't lead to hurtful actions, I'm good. I wish more people were like me.

But what if someone's truth is that their thoughts don't lead to hurtful actions or if they do the person's hurt are not inside the circle of moral concern. Then what? Since there is no reason to *prefer* non-hurtful actions as a touchstone if someone holds a truth that leads to harm, all we have is 'I don't like that so please don't". That seems a flimsy basis upon which to build any idea of justice. What we *can't* do is argue that the person holding the truth that leads to malevolent action is wrong because it's their 'truth', so it *can't* be wrong. It can't be wrong even by our own lights since your truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and my truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and Ebon's truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong but *of course* we would say that. We all have a vested interest in it being wrong. But since we have conceded that if you believe something is true then it IS true--for any reasonable definition--then all someone has to get around the codicil that it can't lead to harm is for that person to say "racism doesn't hurt people, of course those on the receiving end will *say* that it hurts them but what else would you expect 'those people' to say?" Now, they've stated that their 'truth' is that racism doesn't hurt people. If you insist that it does then they can even concede that it might but that the targets of racism are beyond the circle of reasonable moral concern and the same way you wouldn't, say, crash an airplane with 300 people on board in order to save the life of an ant, one should not force society to roll into the circle of moral concern people who are clearly beyond that circle--it is their truth after all and there is no reason that anyone can give as to why *your* truth is preferable to *their* truth.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Where do you come down then on truth as relative or absolute?

(I usually position myself squarely at "relatively absolute," rather than "absolutely relative." Meaning, I have no argument to support a position either way. This one drives me nuts.)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

Where do you come down then on truth as relative or absolute?

(I usually position myself squarely at "relatively absolute," rather than "absolutely relative." Meaning, I have no argument to support a position either way. This one drives me nuts.)

Truth is, more or less, relatively absolute depending upon the subject matter domain. Whether that 'truth' is comprehensible or can be apprehended may be up for question but there appears to be an actual world 'out there' and while we may not have *direct* access to it, much of the time we can treat our approximations of the world as 'true enough' to work with.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Metropolis

What is true for one person may not be true for another, this "is my truth" to me means it is that persons perspective/belief/reality/situation... and simultaneously it acknowledges it may not be another persons.

I haven't seen it used to shut-down a conversation, but can imagine it could be used to say "you're not going to change my mind", or that a person is wasting their breath arguing what ever "truth" is being referenced in the conversation.

*shrugs*

No matter how many times I hear it explained, I can't get past the idea that 'true', when applied to a statement, is supposed to be a measure of veracity. If it is not then 'tell the truth' and 'tell a lie' become empty phrases.

Take, for example, the old idea of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Imagine that child explaining that for her it is 'true' that she wasn't told she couldn't have cookies before dinner. Since she wasn't told that (because it was true for her) then that means she could have a cookie and because it is true for her there is no grounds for punishing her for taking a cookie when she wasn't supposed to. Now, of course, the child's mother has her own 'truth' that she did tell her child not to eat cookies before dinner but if we concede that the child has her own truth and the mother has her own truth and if we decide that there is no reason to prefer one truth over the other, then the mother has no grounds for disciplining her child. I think we would all agree that if, for example, the child was demonstrably at school and the cookie jar fell off the counter and broke, it would be unjust--even abusive--for the mother to punish her child for something the child demonstrably could not have done.

Yet, if we concede that the mother can have one 'truth' (one where the child broke the cookie jar even if she was nowhere near it) and the child can have another (where she didn't break the cookie jar because she was at school) now we have to concede that if the mother asserts that her 'truth' is that her daughter broke the cookie jar then she is justified in punishing the child.

If you would concede that the only circumstances where it would be unjust to punish the child is when the child did not do that for which she is going to be punished, then we have now broken the link between what the child does and what she is punished for. It does not matter if she *did* the thing what matters is if her mother has as her truth that she did the thing. Whether it *actually* happened becomes functionally irrelevant.

The problem I have with the 'this is my truth' idea is that it breaks the linkage between our actions and our behaviors. I woke up at 4:30 this morning to be at the office by 6:00. Not because I wanted to but because I believed--correctly--that I had to be there by 6:00 and that failure to do so would be a 'career limiting move'. In other words, I behaved in a manner appropriate to the circumstances I held to be true--that my boss expected me to be in at 6:00 to be at a meeting with members of our organization in England.

Now, it may be that the link between the beliefs that someone holds and their actions is under-determined but I don't believe it is so. This means that if someone believes--holds to be true--that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be legally married because this or that divine being hates the very idea of homosexuals existing much less marrying then that person's behavior will be *very* different than one who, for instance, does not believe that the sensibilities of divine beings has no legitimate place in determining laws in a secular legal system. Perhaps it is because I grew up in an America where non-trivial numbers of the majority saw the color of my skin and determined, based upon that information, that their 'truth' was that I was an intellectual and moral inferior and that they should behave appropriately that I distrust the 'this is my truth' construction. I do not think it is benign and, in fact, I think it can lead to quite malevolent outcomes.

I'm curious, is there anyone here who believes that if N-number of Republicans hold to be true that Barack Obama is a Marxist, Mau-Mau, Islamic fascist, socialist who was born in Kenya and hates America does that mean that, in fact, Mr. Obama is obliged to BE those things. If someone believes these things to be true and it turns out that he is none of those things, doesn't that mean that someone holds a 'false' belief? There are no sane worlds (sane here meaning not self-contradictory) where Mr. Obama was both born in Kenya and born in Hawaii. If it is 'true' that he was born in Kenya then he is not the legitimate President nor can he ever be the legitimate President since the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. If it is not true then one may not like him, his party or his policies but that does not mean he is illegitimate.

I understand that 'that is my truth' is supposed to be a way of promoting dialog and tolerance but it fails to do the former and actually gives aid and comfort to bigotry since, for instance, a bigot can assert that it is her 'truth' that I am her mental and moral inferior and the *only* counter I have left to me is that my 'truth' is that I'm not--but no one should expect me to accede to statements about my own inferiority so there's no way for someone on the sidelines to adjudicate that. Meaning that outside of a 'well, my truth is that I don't like racism' is the *best* stance you can make. Again, if my being black is held by someone to be prima facie evidence on my mental and moral inferiority it is *entirely* appropriate, given the 'this is my truth', construction for them to act in the most racist manner since they are not being 'racist' by their own lights but acting in accordance with what they held to be true. To promote, pass or enforce laws or social norms that make that kind of behavior out of bounds is to violate the bigot's truth for no *good* reason.

Is that really the world people want because that is the world that elevating an opinion--even an incorrect one--to the level of 'truth' ineluctably creates.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

I don't think relativizing to "my truth" makes a real difference in the examples. It's exactly what goes on anyway. People often dispute what is "really" the truth. The child claims, "Nossir, you never told me that!" The mother responds "Yes, I did." Or even, "You know I did." In this case, the power balance is unequal and generally the mother "wins." When power is more balanced, people argue and bring evidence to support "their truth."

I do think words have power and that a change like this is often part of a process that changes understanding as well as usage, but I don't think the case is quite as strong here as you make it.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

I don't think relativizing to "my truth" makes a real difference in the examples. It's exactly what goes on anyway. People often dispute what is "really" the truth. The child claims, "Nossir, you never told me that!" The mother responds "Yes, I did." Or even, "You know I did." In this case, the power balance is unequal and generally the mother "wins." When power is more balanced, people argue and bring evidence to support "their truth."

I do think words have power and that a change like this is often part of a process that changes understanding as well as usage, but I don't think the case is quite as strong here as you make it.

It may not be the best example but I think it illustrates a problem. There's a set of unspoken assumptions about the way people are and the way the world works that I do not think are supported by evidence or observation. To make the assumptions explicit:

1) Saying "this is my truth" is more benign than saying "I believe X, you believe Y, X and Y are mutually exclusive so one of us is wrong".

2) People's behavior has no necessary link to their beliefs. In other words, no matter how tempting it might be to state that I wanted coffee, believed there was coffee in the kitchen, rose from my chair and walked to the kitchen to pour coffee and then returned from my desk, the fact that I started off with a belief that there was coffee to be had had *no causal influence* on my actions. I might have just as easily walked to the roof to get coffee or I might have just as easily sat at my desk wishing for my cup to be filled.

3) That people do not hold beliefs that are malevolent or even if they do those beliefs do not lead to unjust or malevolent actions.

4) That as long as everyone was as tolerant as the people holding the 'this is my truth' stance like to believe themselves to be then all will work out well in the end.

5) There are never legitimate conflicts of interest that might lead people to hold contradictory beliefs.

I would argue that all five of those premises are demonstrably false and that the idea that you have your 'truth' and I have my 'truth' is actually quite a bit more problematic than people give it credit for. Deeply problematic.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

It may not be the best example but I think it illustrates a problem. There's a set of unspoken assumptions about the way people are and the way the world works that I do not think are supported by evidence or observation. To make the assumptions explicit:

1) Saying "this is my truth" is more benign than saying "I believe X, you believe Y, X and Y are mutually exclusive so one of us is wrong".

2) People's behavior has no necessary link to their beliefs. In other words, no matter how tempting it might be to state that I wanted coffee, believed there was coffee in the kitchen, rose from my chair and walked to the kitchen to pour coffee and then returned from my desk, the fact that I started off with a belief that there was coffee to be had had *no causal influence* on my actions. I might have just as easily walked to the roof to get coffee or I might have just as easily sat at my desk wishing for my cup to be filled.

3) That people do not hold beliefs that are malevolent or even if they do those beliefs do not lead to unjust or malevolent actions.

4) That as long as everyone was as tolerant as the people holding the 'this is my truth' stance like to believe themselves to be then all will work out well in the end.

5) There are never legitimate conflicts of interest that might lead people to hold contradictory beliefs.

I would argue that all five of those premises are demonstrably false and that the idea that you have your 'truth' and I have my 'truth' is actually quite a bit more problematic than people give it credit for. Deeply problematic.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, I agree with your overall point. I think we differ on the relatively (heh) minor point of how insidious "my truth" is in the groupthink; as opposed to, "This is what I say the truth is." Understand, though, that I absolutely (heh) understand why you think the change to "personal truth" may be more insidious than a disagreement about what is true. That's very insightful.

And... and, I was going to say something else about it... and now, I forget. (Sorry--this is me, stunted. It was California, it was the 80's....)

[Jett]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

No matter how many times I hear it explained, I can't get past the idea that 'true', when applied to a statement, is supposed to be a measure of veracity. If it is not then 'tell the truth' and 'tell a lie' become empty phrases.

Take, for example, the old idea of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Imagine that child explaining that for her it is 'true' that she wasn't told she couldn't have cookies before dinner. Since she wasn't told that (because it was true for her) then that means she could have a cookie and because it is true for her there is no grounds for punishing her for taking a cookie when she wasn't supposed to. Now, of course, the child's mother has her own 'truth' that she did tell her child not to eat cookies before dinner but if we concede that the child has her own truth and the mother has her own truth and if we decide that there is no reason to prefer one truth over the other, then the mother has no grounds for disciplining her child. I think we would all agree that if, for example, the child was demonstrably at school and the cookie jar fell off the counter and broke, it would be unjust--even abusive--for the mother to punish her child for something the child demonstrably could not have done.

Yet, if we concede that the mother can have one 'truth' (one where the child broke the cookie jar even if she was nowhere near it) and the child can have another (where she didn't break the cookie jar because she was at school) now we have to concede that if the mother asserts that her 'truth' is that her daughter broke the cookie jar then she is justified in punishing the child.

If you would concede that the only circumstances where it would be unjust to punish the child is when the child did not do that for which she is going to be punished, then we have now broken the link between what the child does and what she is punished for. It does not matter if she *did* the thing what matters is if her mother has as her truth that she did the thing. Whether it *actually* happened becomes functionally irrelevant.

The problem I have with the 'this is my truth' idea is that it breaks the linkage between our actions and our behaviors. I woke up at 4:30 this morning to be at the office by 6:00. Not because I wanted to but because I believed--correctly--that I had to be there by 6:00 and that failure to do so would be a 'career limiting move'. In other words, I behaved in a manner appropriate to the circumstances I held to be true--that my boss expected me to be in at 6:00 to be at a meeting with members of our organization in England.

Now, it may be that the link between the beliefs that someone holds and their actions is under-determined but I don't believe it is so. This means that if someone believes--holds to be true--that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be legally married because this or that divine being hates the very idea of homosexuals existing much less marrying then that person's behavior will be *very* different than one who, for instance, does not believe that the sensibilities of divine beings has no legitimate place in determining laws in a secular legal system. Perhaps it is because I grew up in an America where non-trivial numbers of the majority saw the color of my skin and determined, based upon that information, that their 'truth' was that I was an intellectual and moral inferior and that they should behave appropriately that I distrust the 'this is my truth' construction. I do not think it is benign and, in fact, I think it can lead to quite malevolent outcomes.

I'm curious, is there anyone here who believes that if N-number of Republicans hold to be true that Barack Obama is a Marxist, Mau-Mau, Islamic fascist, socialist who was born in Kenya and hates America does that mean that, in fact, Mr. Obama is obliged to BE those things. If someone believes these things to be true and it turns out that he is none of those things, doesn't that mean that someone holds a 'false' belief? There are no sane worlds (sane here meaning not self-contradictory) where Mr. Obama was both born in Kenya and born in Hawaii. If it is 'true' that he was born in Kenya then he is not the legitimate President nor can he ever be the legitimate President since the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. If it is not true then one may not like him, his party or his policies but that does not mean he is illegitimate.

I understand that 'that is my truth' is supposed to be a way of promoting dialog and tolerance but it fails to do the former and actually gives aid and comfort to bigotry since, for instance, a bigot can assert that it is her 'truth' that I am her mental and moral inferior and the *only* counter I have left to me is that my 'truth' is that I'm not--but no one should expect me to accede to statements about my own inferiority so there's no way for someone on the sidelines to adjudicate that. Meaning that outside of a 'well, my truth is that I don't like racism' is the *best* stance you can make. Again, if my being black is held by someone to be prima facie evidence on my mental and moral inferiority it is *entirely* appropriate, given the 'this is my truth', construction for them to act in the most racist manner since they are not being 'racist' by their own lights but acting in accordance with what they held to be true. To promote, pass or enforce laws or social norms that make that kind of behavior out of bounds is to violate the bigot's truth for no *good* reason.

Is that really the world people want because that is the world that elevating an opinion--even an incorrect one--to the level of 'truth' ineluctably creates.

Cheers
Aj

Right I think someone saying something is "my truth" most certainly doesn't absolve them from error in that "truth" or error in the usage of the phrase.

But... I feel like "it's my truth" is meant to be used in a personal context rather than factual statement about, say for example, whether something's red or if it's blue... because the truth of what color something is, is clear and not really subject to personal choice or perspective . I feel like using the term that way is stretching it beyond what I understand it's (the phrase) essence to be.

So I really think it is more meant to be about and used in reference to things that are subject to ones perspective rather than things that have no room for personal opinion and are just plain facts. When I think of it, if I were to use it... and I have it would be in a context of my feelings about how I as a human perceive more abstract ideas and or internalize them and sort to arrive at "my truth". Less than concrete things, perhaps feelings of gender, labels etc. Like if someone were to put forth that Metropolis is a butch because I XYZ and ABC ... it doesn't matter, because how I feel about what I am is still MY truth, and correct for me.

It IS true for me... but may not be for others... we have different truths. I don't think the statement is meant to be used to say something is THEE universal truth, but a more abstract personal truth to or about oneself. I think if used to dispute indisputable facts about the outside world the phrase is just being used incorrectly in the first place.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Metropolis

Right I think someone saying something is "my truth" most certainly doesn't absolve them from error in that "truth" or error in the usage of the phrase.

But... I feel like "it's my truth" is meant to be used in a personal context rather than factual statement about, say for example, whether something's red or if it's blue... because the truth of what color something is, is clear and not really subject to personal choice or perspective . I feel like using the term that way is stretching it beyond what I understand it's (the phrase) essence to be.

So I really think it is more meant to be about and used in reference to things that are subject to ones perspective rather than things that have no room for personal opinion and are just plain facts. When I think of it, if I were to use it... and I have it would be in a context of my feelings about how I as a human perceive more abstract ideas and or internalize them and sort to arrive at "my truth". Less than concrete things, perhaps feelings of gender, labels etc. Like if someone were to put forth that Metropolis is a butch because I XYZ and ABC ... it doesn't matter, because how I feel about what I am is still MY truth, and correct for me.

It IS true for me... but may not be for others... we have different truths. I don't think the statement is meant to be used to say something is THEE universal truth, but a more abstract personal truth to or about oneself. I think if used to dispute indisputable facts about the outside world the phrase is just being used incorrectly in the first place.

I have read the phrase (or one of its synonyms) used here in the problematic context (not wanting to reopen old wounds I will not go into specific details about the incidents I have in mind) which is what sparks my interest in the matter. If you are talking about your own interior landscape then 'this my truth' is almost entirely unproblematic. If that is what is at issue, then my question changes from what 'this is my truth' buys us to why anyone would take the statement "my truth is that tequila is yummy" as being at all problematic.

Cheers
Aj

[Vivacious1]

I have never used it, but, to me it would mean, what holds true for me. My beliefs, the way that I live and the things I live for.