OK, I’ve seen enough examples now that it’s worth briefly talking about the phenomenon as a whole –

Like most everyone else here, I’m sure, I’m very invested in the wide world of People Having Interesting High-Level Things to Say On the Internet.  In many ways, on a valuable-insight-per-minute basis, it’s a better place to be than the world of Actual Published Authors.  But it does have serious endemic flaws of its own. 

One of them, which I’m just starting to be able to understand as its own recurring type, is

the author with important ideas to express, but who refuses to express them in a way that his readers are actually going to be able to understand and process, because he wants to stay on brand or because he’s more interested in venting his emotions than in communicating

Identifying plumage here includes the repetition of stock phrases in a conversation/explanation well past the point where they obviously aren’t sinking in, and through the refusal to treat questions/criticisms as being generated in good faith, instead using them as fuel for yet more on-brand analysis. 

If you think this might be you –

– well, if you want to do that, if you’re satisfied with your priorities, then you do you, I guess.  It’s your platform.  But you’re ensuring that it’s actually pretty difficult for people to go through your writing and figure out how to absorb / come to terms with your good ideas, even if they are actively invested in doing that thing, and you’re also ensuring that many otherwise-persuadable readers are going to be frustrated and hostile.