From MRDA’s Inferno.
Now, I don’t deny that certain faces ‘n’ figures elicit more—sometimes many more—raised cocks and/or moistened cunts than others; neither will I contest that some folks inspire forlorn gazes and filthy fantasies wherever on the globe they go.
However such popularity, even on a universal scale, differs considerably from the chimerical “objectivity” Kanazawa pulls out of his arse.
Does the overwhelming popularity of chart-oriented pop across age groups and nations render it “objectively” superior to heavy metal? The blues? Opera? Classical?
As far as the printed page goes, do the superior sales of Heat magazine, tabloids, Twilight novels, and Dan Brown books make them more “objectively” pleasurable and worthwhile reads than the works of Stirner, Nietzsche, the Marquis De Sade, and Robert Anton Wilson?
I expect a connoisseur of said popular tastes would take issue with my choices, substituting “critical acclaim” and “influence” for “popularity” and “sales” in their counterarguments.
As the old adage goes: there’s no accounting for taste.
However, from reading his article, I see Kanazawa repeating the same error/deception with aesthetics that religious and secular moralists love to indulge in the ethical realm: asserting taste as Truth.