If truth is a statement which is justifiably believed to be the case and there are more than one equally justifiable and different beliefs about the same state of affairs, then what is true is not assured through appealing to facts.
If truth is aside from facts, then contradiction can be expected and as a primary maxim of reason, the law of noncontradiction isn’t a reasonable construct in thinking about what is true.
That is, that some statements, though they are contradictions, are coherent and thus convey meaning, are not trivial and are analyzable; which the maxim asks us to outright ignore for the sake of a maxim alone.
Given that indeed a thing is what it is and is not anything else at any point in time, the existence of contradiction necessarily proves its mind-dependence and again as such, is not a reasonable maxim to hold as absolute.
Finally, if truth is what we can justify believing and if one can justifiably believe many things about the same state of affairs, then this itself is a non trivial counter-example to the law of noncontradiction and a dialethia in itself; truth not being an exclusive state of affairs. In that case, dismissing Dialetheism by appealing to the idea that such a state implies an incomplete understanding of a state of affairs and that noncontradiction still holds only demonstrates the predicate idea that we can attain completeness in our understandings. This is false of course and proven so. This also only brings attention to this key feature of Dialetheism: truth is semiotic and non contradiction is helpful rather than absolute, exactly to the same degree and in the same way as any other logical principle guiding us to right thinking.