It’s a beautiful misty spring morning and I climb the stairs out of the Q train. I look up and see one of those magical New York sights. The clouds are hanging so low that I can see them actually flow through the trees of Central Park.
Hit play, and start reading.
This piece from the NY Times about stupid games really rung a bell in my head:
Stupid games, on the other hand, are rarely occasions in themselves. They are designed to push their way through the cracks of other occasions. We play them incidentally, ambivalently, compulsively, almost accidentally. They’re less an activity in our day than a blank space in our day; less a pursuit than a distraction from other pursuits. You glance down to check your calendar and suddenly it’s 40 minutes later and there’s only one level left before you jump to the next stage, so you might as well just launch another bird.
That this has not proven to be a handicap for someone employed by the London School of Economics is astounding and reflects poorly on them.
I found him through the stupidest, most sexist article I have read this year.
The power of female choice becomes quite apparent in a simple thought experiment. Imagine for a moment a society where sex and mating were entirely a male choice; individuals have sex whenever and with whomever men want, not whenever and with whomever women want. What would happen in such a society? Absolutely nothing, because people would never stop having sex! There would be no civilization in such a society, because people would not do anything besides have sex. This, incidentally, is the reason why gay men never stop having sex: there are no women in their relationships to say no.
This is the the point where I immediately knew Kanazawa cannot think. 1 Does he think that gay men do not hold jobs or have careers? That they get nothing done? That women do not want to have sex? 2 It takes but a moment’s reflection for any thinking person to look at that paragraph after having written it. In a room where candles are going out from lack of oxygen one should still see the contradictions and quickly delete it.
Kanazawa cemented my opinion in the next paragraph.
This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software, in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. There would be no civilization, no art, no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male choice.
Surely he is aware that gay warriors, musicians, authors, poets, artists, scientists might be a slight rebuttal to his idea?
I no longer believe that he is aware of this. I read another article where Kanazawa advocates killing every human being in the mideast as a solution to terrorism. His list of articles is a grand collection of logical fallacies.
I do not approve of ad-hominem arguments. However, if Satoshi Kanazawa makes any statement, I would be biased to think the statement is wrong.
- I would also guess that he does not or cannot read the news, let alone know any gay people. How else could he have missed the great number of gay men struggling for the right to marry? (back)
- Later in the article he reveals that his problem is small sample size. Women do not want to have sex with Satoshi Kanazawa, and he generalizes from that. (back)