It strikes me that drawing a clear line between Blob and Non-Blob is difficult, and Blobbiness probably exists on a spectrum. Are there circumstances where you would support some Blobbiness (my new favorite word, for what it's worth)?
It strikes me that drawing a clear line between Blob and Non-Blob is difficult, and Blobbiness probably exists on a spectrum. Are there circumstances where you would support some Blobbiness (my new favorite word, for what it's worth)?
There are definitely borderline cases, where restrainers would disagree. But I think a large majority of big foreign policy calls that have been made by recent presidents wouldn't bring much disagreement among restrainers.
I agree that it seems more like a spectrum. It might be more useful to describe "The Blob" not as a group of people (blobsters) but as a set of ideas and ways of thinking. One could then be acting "blobby" or be in danger of succumbing to The Blob. It would allow for someone to hold some "blobbish" beliefs while also holding opinions that align with Restraint. To be a blobster (if used at all) would be to exist on the extreme end of the Blob:Restraint spectrum, be found "deep within the Blob," or "belong to the Blob."
I see this as a more useful way to use the term "The Blob" because it helps us avoid the trap of defining ourselves as the "restrainers" (read: "good guys") and automatically disagreeing with the "blobsters" (read: "bad guys"), thereby adopting one of the key characteristics of The Blob and perpetuating the division that Restraint seems to be trying to rectify.
Taking a term like "The Blob" and turning it into a label to identify individuals (blobster) doesn't seem congruent with the essence of the original word.
It strikes me that drawing a clear line between Blob and Non-Blob is difficult, and Blobbiness probably exists on a spectrum. Are there circumstances where you would support some Blobbiness (my new favorite word, for what it's worth)?
There are definitely borderline cases, where restrainers would disagree. But I think a large majority of big foreign policy calls that have been made by recent presidents wouldn't bring much disagreement among restrainers.
I agree that it seems more like a spectrum. It might be more useful to describe "The Blob" not as a group of people (blobsters) but as a set of ideas and ways of thinking. One could then be acting "blobby" or be in danger of succumbing to The Blob. It would allow for someone to hold some "blobbish" beliefs while also holding opinions that align with Restraint. To be a blobster (if used at all) would be to exist on the extreme end of the Blob:Restraint spectrum, be found "deep within the Blob," or "belong to the Blob."
I see this as a more useful way to use the term "The Blob" because it helps us avoid the trap of defining ourselves as the "restrainers" (read: "good guys") and automatically disagreeing with the "blobsters" (read: "bad guys"), thereby adopting one of the key characteristics of The Blob and perpetuating the division that Restraint seems to be trying to rectify.
Taking a term like "The Blob" and turning it into a label to identify individuals (blobster) doesn't seem congruent with the essence of the original word.