If you want to persuade people that you don't go in for all that lazy cliched rubbish try applying that attitude towards the blog you write. Maybe try avoiding that hackneyed "Here's a definition of a word" - it's fatuous and insulting to your readers. Your readers know the definition of a cliche, they're reading one right now. The problem with falling into these silly tropes is that you end up saying things you don't mean like "All of those rules are just dogma to us and we don’t care. " - reading the rest of the article it's pretty clear that you actually do care about 90% of those rules, you actually regard them very highly but you
aren't treating them as "uncontravertibly true" - which was your definition of dogma in the first place. So they're not dogma is what you're saying.
I think that a huge chunk of the contrarian things that are listed here come from a very simple fact: Linear B is a start up with a technical product at it's core. It's fine for a small start up to talk about what 1 engineer is working on, but as the company scales that detail becomes too much detail. The lesson there isn't that you should give more detail, the lesson is that the level of detail is relative to the scope of the entire task. If you have 100 engineers working at your company a meeting where the vp of marketing is asking what Karen is working on is going to be a tedious nightmare.