But is it really extreme? For instance:
When we have a discussion with another person, are we really talking and perhaps upset about the same things, or are we both in our own bubbles sending messages across about different aspects of reality?
When you say to someone "this amp is bad" and you mean because of it's measured SINAD, and the other person says "no this amp is good" because they like how the distortion colors the sound, then the discussion is ultimately pointless. If your goal is to find truth and solutions to common problems in a shared reality, then you have to make sure you are talking about the same things. That is why subjectivity is an enemy of effective communication.
So while it can work in a practical sense to only share a reality in estimation, for instance by saying 'i believe in my god and you believe in yours, and that's okay', this means that the basis for your concept of reality will radically differ from mine. And from that basis rise all sorts of other frictions and battles, such as questions about what is right or wrong, topics that have so much implications that people are willing to go to war over them, and submit or even kill each other.
This all starts from the very beginning, whether you have a shared goal of defining an objective reality and an objective truth as much as possible, so that conflicts can be avoided and harmony is most likely to occur.