The multiplicity and relativity of viewpoints means all the arguments hold some sort of validity from genuine participants and gets more towards underlying or common #Truth.

Holding truth is very important for people and personal truth as value itself. Not to ignore genuine individual people or feel that you are being ignored is a big part of which Anekantavada already expects to have "many sides" to any given perspective.

For those not genuine I think they are often people who are not finding a place of acceptance and rebel or have no way of expression and have to go for lesser things or more forceful / direct ways simply because they can't do that in existing world (for example they are shut off by others or systematically) so feelings are also a reflection of the way it is now. If expression has no place or very little is actually respected (none is actually heard or example just goes to twisted mainstream social media) then people lashes out or isn't training better which safe spaces online or in person you will agree is so much better conversing and exchanging views about rather than taking offense or mainstream reaction-culture.

The mass of opinion usually overwhelms people or system (of course most systems actually are deliberately installed as they "don't want to know" from the very beginning and use computers etc to enforce that) but taken as relativity by individuals as their own planetary style system themselves, Anekantavada perspective makes it a lot less cut-throat in expectations from opinions and personally more accepting / softer to accept. )

"Because the Jain position was able to overcome the apparent inconsistencies between the other views (or religions)... it came closer to fully grasping the one underlying truth, satya."

( This underlying or let's say META from personal experiences or opinions is often really what we want to "get" to AND without discounting genuine views - whatever our opinion - because we each have of those and are improving them)

THAT MEANS OUR OPINIONS CAN CHANGE ALSO!

#Anekantavada also says in short, for everything: "in some ways it is and in some ways it is not, sometimes both at the same time" which is also factual in terms of object or people's attributes and opinions being true in this sense but untrue if looking as different category or comparison.

So more often it is not 1 or 0 or universally all true or false but always a mix of who is looking at what and how... because often "it is that" and then "it isn't that" (and it can be changing or alternating like a mood) so in some way it's so much better to be accepting of that from the beginning... because especially as people, we change and so do things around us. Having such rigidity is actually the problem that makes us break rules or expectations so easily.

As extreme example you can see how #fascism / #binary / #tech doesn't work or is insensitive to people's diversity or opinions because it cuts it out / forces right boxes, confines to narrow pipes of expression etc...

I'd add that this is multi-sided-ness is totally natural, not just from my perspective and yours (individuality as onlookers) but also from the nature perspective of our world where each thing can serve another purpose for many reasons or the appreciation can seen in a different light depending on who / what creature is shining light on it or sharing it- sometimes quite momentary, ethereal and holding context by 2 or more at the time where alone it might not seem to exist...

This way could be the most beautiful and consistent way to appreciate the #beauty and awe (or awesomeness) of the world together and make that #life itself.

Mostly my writing - few paragraphs from this source:

Harvard Pluralism Project:
https://pluralism.org/anekantavada-the-relativity-of-views