I'm sorry, but if I may be frank, I feel ascriptions like "genius" to be massively overblown in this context, masturbatory, and nothing more than the signal of

I'm sorry, but if I may be frank, I feel ascriptions like "genius" to be massively overblown in this context, masturbatory, and nothing more than the signal of how inflated egos may become once they gain modest degrees of influence. Is it possible epoch defining ideas are lying around on a blog somewhere, sure, but it's highly unlikely. In order to become an intellectual legend, you need to have ideas with reach stoking the ire of a few thousand redditors and having even a few million views on posts in 2020 is not a significant amount of reach to shape zeitgeists. Yes, sad but true, those who are going through the traditional channels and publishing institutions still have the most impact on the world (it's easy to feel like your contributions and small internet following is a more significant player in shaping the future than it really is). While it's quite possible/likely the ideas on this blog will be immensely important and thoroughly studied in a field of specialization, I will wager they will have no effect on the overall social field. I'd argue pseudonymity is actually harmful in a community of specialists, since it blocks the proper exchange and verification of results and creates opportunity for plagarization. There is a distinction between internet/niche community "cancellation" and "cancellation" in the real world. In my personal estimation, everyone's fear of "cancel culture" is grossly exaggerated when it comes to the way it operates in the real world. Typically, most of the notable "cancel" incidents are not the result of some "leftists" ruining someone's career over indelicate statements, they stem rather from direct allegations of criminal behavior; sexual assault, abuse of power for personal gain, clear-cut hate crimes, etc. Sure, there may be small communities more susceptible to flimsy, purely speech-based "cancellations" but that is a failure of the community in question to uphold ideals of open discussion (assuming the speech isn't in fact harmful); if you think "cancel culture" is an unstoppable global phenomenon that can ruin anyone's life in a moment's notice you only need look at the current US president to assure yourself otherwise. Finally, I'd like to say that the vast majority of people that continue to cling to some antiquated enlightenment ideal of reason, in which reason is some pure, untrammeled, untainted instrument that will unite us all and lead us to the promised land, only prove themselves ignorant of all of post-WWII philosophy. WWII blew gaping holes in the entire enlightenment enterprise and philosophers from all sides (even legendary logicians such as Quine, Russell, and Wittgenstein) all make some fundamental appeal to relativity in their work, and clearly state there are problems that logical reasoning (by extension strictly economic/utilitarian reasoning, by extension purely technological reasoning) cannot solve (or in the case of Wittgenstein, cannot even express). Many people have switched to using so-called "reason" as a defense mechanism for promulgating ideas they know would bring them flak were it not for the guise of "objectivity" or the shield of (usually suspect) statistics (another thing philsopshers have throughly dismantled, by the way, as early as the 1800s with Neitzsche and more recently in the philosophy of science).