I think it goes without saying that all minority interests suffer from credibility gaps. We humans are hardwired to be skeptical when we look in on something said to be good but not indulged by many people. It's a defense mechanism, most likely, but it does mean that when you do have a genuinely good, new idea, you'll know by the way you have to work hard to get anyone to listen.
Cryonics, the low temperature preservation of the fine cellular structure of the body and brain at the end of life, is a good idea. There's a non-zero chance you'll be repaired and revived in a future of wondrous technologies, with the chance to live on for a very long time in a fascinating era. That compares favorably with the other options open to the dying, but cryonics remains a fringe practice. It hasn't yet bootstrapped to the level of participation that prevents knee-jerk rejection from most people.
In this vein, a couple of recent posts from the community I'd like to draw to your attention:
I've recently found out just how "weird" and even "crackpottish" the idea of cryonics seems to Most People. I actually always saw it as one of the less weird things a person might conceivably find intriguing. But apparently that isn't the case.
The Daily Mail, a UK tabloid legendary on the Internet for its dense celebrity reporting, has finally taken on the coolest topic of all - cryonics. Like many articles about freezing yourself solid to be revived in the future, this one is negative.
Or is it? The Mail is a media outlet renowned for its disdain for facts in an industry renowned for its disdain for facts, but here, possibly accidentally, it turned out an article that might actually give a net positive impression.