[famouslastwords]

>what was likely to be an enthusiastic article has been absolutely pathological

The NY Times was willing to use pseudonyms for the subjects of articles in the past. I didn't see Banksy exposed for instance.

So if the article was in fact sympathetic why use the real name, when it has no relevancy to the subject?

Unless, the article was actually not sympathetic, but meant as a zesty piece to "expose" Scott Alexander as a reactionary/eugenist/sexist in the current hot climate of "cancel-culture".

Which surely would generate lots of clicks for the NY Times, but would also destroy the subject of their story at the hands of SJW/twitter mob, then allowing for more stories about the drama and generate more clicks.

Exposing SA's real name is a win only for the NY Times.