By all means don't take it seriously, but in the interest of conversation, Tyler Durden is a pretty obvious reference to the quote "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero". Would you be more inclined to take a website seriously if they simply said their articles were penned by "anonymous"?
ETA: One thing I appreciate about ZeroHedge is that they include their sources. For example there was an article earlier today about a court ruling and the text of the ruling itself was embedded right there, inline with the article. Similarly when they mention a post on Twitter you can usually read the tweet for yourself and decide if their analysis is appropriate. That is a breath of fresh air after spending time on so many news sites (both major and more "fringe" ones) that just expect you to take them at their word. I'm not saying everyone should follow their lead exactly, but is it too much to ask that the primary source that is the focus of an article at least be linked somewhere at the bottom of the page, CNN?
The book/film Durden always seemed a bit like a hypocritical villain. Did I enjoy the character, the gags, the twist? Sure! But seeing an article with this identity as the pen name makes my eyes roll pretty hard. Are some of the pressures imposed by society bad things? Yes, some certainly are. But the folks who see Durden as a champion often rally behind him because they don't like the fact that their beliefs draw scorn from society. It's not because they're unsung heroes brought down by popular culture but instead because their beliefs are anti-social.
> Tyler Durden is a pretty obvious reference to the quote "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero"
It's an obvious reference to the character, using his name. It's not at all obvious from this article alone that it's referring to this quote. But you probably have some more context about this website? What is it about this website or this article that makes you think it's referring to this particular quote?
ETA: One thing I appreciate about ZeroHedge is that they include their sources. For example there was an article earlier today about a court ruling and the text of the ruling itself was embedded right there, inline with the article. Similarly when they mention a post on Twitter you can usually read the tweet for yourself and decide if their analysis is appropriate. That is a breath of fresh air after spending time on so many news sites (both major and more "fringe" ones) that just expect you to take them at their word. I'm not saying everyone should follow their lead exactly, but is it too much to ask that the primary source that is the focus of an article at least be linked somewhere at the bottom of the page, CNN?