Trivialism is pretty hopeless as a philosophy , although it is very easy to defend /maintain verbally! The main criticism against it which is pertinent to this project is well expounded, and it is an argument from meaning. It is not clear that a trivialist can mean anything by his utterance or written statement, since there is no recognizable judgment attending sentences.
There are two ways in which the avoidance of trivialism can fail . One is to accept the classical equivalence of negation - and absolute inconsistency.
...a border line case of a bearded person may be admitted as both bearded and not bearded without triviality. The admission does not carry a commitment to everything being true (i.e. it does not carry a commitment to what we might term trivialism – the view that everything is true).
trivialism, the doctrine that everything is actually true .
I know of no discussion which has degenerated into trivialism into trivilaism, except in moments of jest .
trivialism arises from the idea that mathematics is classical and there is contradiction in mathematics, and therefore (under our old classical reasoning), all of mathematics is true , we then get to the meaninglessness of any particular mathematical statement and wallow in our degenerate theory .