The kind of advice I gave in those old DTSs helps somewhat, but Blobovian rhetoric is most effective when employed by someone you care about because it always involves demands that you make concessions in the service of peace, love, harmony and so forth and terminate your evil practice of "erecting barriers between people," or some such line of crap. Why should you give in instead of the other party giving in? Well, the other party already fully accepts everything you say. It fits in just fine with his views. Your line of thought, such as it is, is therefore incorporated into the Great Blob along with everything else. How could it be otherwise, since everything is part of the Great Blob? As I have insisted for a long time, Solipsistic Nihilism isn't called "Enlightenment" for nothing and the term should be preserved. By using the term you can at least count on making Blobovians nervous and less sure of their ground. They shy away from it, as they do from all distinctions. After all, if belief in the Great Blob is Enlightenment, why is belief in the Great Blob as common as dirt? Usually, almost everyone they know is a Blobovian of some kind of other. Why was Enlightenment (Blobovianism) so hard to come by back in the bad old days while in the modern era Blobovianism (Enlightenment) becomes part of the mental equipment of every reader of "Fate Magazine" and viewer of the "X Files" at age 13 or so? That doesn't seem right. So they dump the term. I strongly advise you to not follow suit. And don't allow yourself to be held to some kind of artificial absolute standard of total perfection involving all kinds of rules that come from nowhere about what you think while the Blobovian admits of no standards at all that apply to what he thinks. Blobovians, as creatures of the mass media and mass education, love abstract nouns and label words and imagine that the arbitrary manipulation of broad, badly-defined categories to score cheap debating points is just as good as honest inquiry. It's just hysterical babbling, really. Don't try to defend the Doctrine in an artificial, isolated way. The Doctrine is not a mathematical progression or a geometric theorem. Defend it as the alternative to X, Y and Z, and in the process display the inadequacies and internal contradictions of X, Y and Z.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
lhasa7's journal