The only truly anonymous public figure I'm aware of is Satoshi Nakamoto and I'm pretty sure that the only reason he stayed anonymous is that he died before he could be definitively found out.
The only truly anonymous public figure I'm aware of is Satoshi Nakamoto and I'm pretty sure that the only reason he stayed anonymous is that he died before he could be definitively found out.
Maybe, but it's not confirmed.
"Banksy's name and identity remain unconfirmed and the subject of speculation."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy#Personal_life_and_dis...
Genuinely curious of your basis for this. As far as I can tell SSC and most rationalist adjacents are basically neo-libs which the NYT has been a bastion of for decades.
That New York Times no longer exists and hasn't for well over a decade.
But I am open to the idea that my interpretation is missing something.
There are a multitude of reasons the NYT might be biased in favor of Banksy and against SSC. But so far as I can tell political alignment is probably not the issue. Though I could be wrong. That is why I asked for clarity.
I'd suggest that you are probably dismissing political alignment too quickly, however. Even if they seem similar to you, the difference might seem important to them. Late Roman Christians fought literal wars over the presence of a letter 'i' in a single word, denoting a difference that probably wouldn't seem all that important to someone who wasn't a Christian, for instance.
It’s the narcissism of small differences, and the treatment of heretics versus pagans.
They- the NYT and SSC- do have, probably, 99% overlap politically, but that’s not too far off from the difference between humans and chimps either. It’s that last 1% that really generates a lot of friction between them.
As the article says, Scott would tolerate conversations with vile people and egregious ideas. The NYT would rather dox them.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religio...