No one here is actually asking for your sources, so far as I can see. The people who are taking umbrage at your comment are most likely (like me) those who do not see your explanation as cogent but instead an assertion that doesn't even fully explain what is asserting. You're promoting a conspiracy theory--a shadowy "They" who are conspiring to do something--without explaining what the conspiracy actually is. What are the myths being enforced? Why are "They" doing this? Who even is "They"?
> But how does one gather a reputation such that whatever I say will be read mindfully and not just dismissed right out when I start to make reasoning leaps all around? the most direct way is to simply repeat what other people with a reputation have said; to preach to the choir.
In my experience on HN, that reputation is gathered mostly by being seen to speak authoritatively on topics. The highest upvote comments I have gathered are generally when I can put together thorough, concise explanations quickly. It doesn't have to agree with the current zeitgeist, but you do generally want to provide stronger argumentation for your viewpoints in that situation.
Under those circumstances, it's perfectly coherent for strangers to dismiss the allegation if it doesn't conform to their preconceived view. It is also perfectly coherent for strangers to agree with it if it does.
Now, if you wish for strangers to come to agree with your world view then you'll have to make some effort to convince them. Whether or not you can be arsed to do that is, of course, up to you.
You must at least provide reasoning, for the thoughts to be cogent. Your assertions are vague - you allude to things without clarifying what you mean, and why you believe it to be so.
> in order to be taken seriously I must...
> I must show...
> I must acquire...
You must do theses things? According to who. again, assertion without explanation. Understand, your thoughts don't explain themselves!
sounds better in ther converse: "it's pretty forgiving of thoughts that do go along the predilect tropes"
The Luke-in-Yoda’s-hut scene pops to mind.
Even after looking up the script, I have no idea what you are saying.
Yoda challenged Luke by telling him he was too old to begin the training, and that a Jedi "craves not" things like adventure and excitement. People have varying degrees of awareness about how much work it is and how long it takes to gain meaningful knowledge and experience. They are impatient, they want shortcuts, they think "likes" are important, they give up. Luke says: "you want the impossible", but of course it's not impossible, just profoundly abstruse.
As a reaction, the "with me or against me" mantra was increasingly strong for the last four and a half years.
I hope people calm down again now that that its over.
but of course, this is not an answer; it's an explanation in the style of the surreal way in which I have chosen to make sense of the larger world around me.
however, who am I to chose how to make sense of the world? who am I to say that mytholgy-engineering has anything to do with the reason for the creation lots and lots of romances set in the british pre-victorian era?
in order to be taken seriously I must provide sources, backing, it is not enough to explain my thoughts cogently. I must show other ideas that support what I say. I must acquire a reputation and then, only then, I can say whatever I want.
But how does one gather a reputation such that whatever I say will be read mindfully and not just dismissed right out when I start to make reasoning leaps all around? the most direct way is to simply repeat what other people with a reputation have said; to preach to the choir.