But that's the beauty of online communication. You can assert that the
sun rises in the east, that 2+2 = 4, that Seebs posts like a lunatic, or
any number of other self-evident things - and all the poster at the
other end (i.e., Seebs) has to do is say "No. There is no evidence of
what you say" and Boom! you go up in smoke.
Unless you have evidence.
But you don't, because fundamentally, you're imposing a status narrative
on non-status-based behaviors. There simply isn't anything corresponding
to that in this part of the world. You can be super important, everyone
can love you, and if you're wrong, people will still say you're wrong.
People argue with dmr and Stroustrup about C and C++. Sometimes they even
win those arguments.
The view of this group of "regulars" who are somehow collaborating to preserve
this mythical status is a bunch of crap. It's not going to become real
just because you think it's a self-evident thing. In fact, one of the reasons
other people conclude that it *isn't* real is that you think it's self-evident
-- and as a result, you can't offer any kind of evidence or support.
All three of your examples, I'd point out, are subject to an operating
definition and can be verified independently. By contrast, your arguments
about status don't seem to have any objective reality to them. It's your
own brain; if you don't like what your brain tells you about social roles,
tell yourself something else, and it'll be just as good.
-s
