CSNbbs

(03-09-2021 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 10:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

Who do you think championed the removal of the books? Skinheads? Elves? Libertarians? Do those sound more likely than progressive sources?

Chinese hackers? Maybe Trump had a meeting with Russian secret agents to put that into motion?

Perhaps it happened because a convergence of the Sun and Aquarius?

What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

(03-10-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 10:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

Who do you think championed the removal of the books? Skinheads? Elves? Libertarians? Do those sound more likely than progressive sources?

Chinese hackers? Maybe Trump had a meeting with Russian secret agents to put that into motion?

Perhaps it happened because a convergence of the Sun and Aquarius?

What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

93, you hang your hat on the fact that the estate stopped the publishing of these six books, as if that proved that progressives had no hand in this event.

But nowhere have I seen any inkling that the estate one day got out of bed, smacked themselves on the forehead, and said "Damn! These books are racist!"

Somebody brought this to their attention. Somebody put some pressure on them to act.

Maybe they acted because they themselves are progressives. But it did not happen in a vacuum.

Now apparently these somebodies did not have names like Harris or Biden. But it is a very good bet that they were progressives and not Qanon. Why? Because censorship and cancel culture are progressive policies.

Just because we cannot, yet, point out specific progressives as the ones who pressured the estate does not mean there was no pressure from progressives.

But if you can point at any right wingers who pressured the estate, feel free to give us their names.

Until then, when I hear lions roar, I will assume the sound comes from lions and not anacondas.

(03-10-2021 12:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The concern over those Seuss books was the potential racist imagery ("Racism"). I'm not calling the books racist but that's the concern that made the estate pull them. The concerns over the CardiB song was racy lyrics ("Racy"). That's why I called it an apples to oranges comparison.

One correction: it's not quite right to refer to the song title as simply "racy". "Racy" denotes a close-to-the-borderline quality, similar to "risqué". By contrast, the title that Tanq referenced is hideous.

(03-10-2021 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 10:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

Who do you think championed the removal of the books? Skinheads? Elves? Libertarians? Do those sound more likely than progressive sources?

Chinese hackers? Maybe Trump had a meeting with Russian secret agents to put that into motion?

Perhaps it happened because a convergence of the Sun and Aquarius?

What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

93, you hang your hat on the fact that the estate stopped the publishing of these six books, as if that proved that progressives had no hand in this event.

But nowhere have I seen any inkling that the estate one day got out of bed, smacked themselves on the forehead, and said "Damn! These books are racist!"

Somebody brought this to their attention. Somebody put some pressure on them to act.

Maybe they acted because they themselves are progressives. But it did not happen in a vacuum.

Now apparently these somebodies did not have names like Harris or Biden. But it is a very good bet that they were progressives and not Qanon. Why? Because censorship and cancel culture are progressive policies.

Just because we cannot, yet, point out specific progressives as the ones who pressured the estate does not mean there was no pressure from progressives.

But if you can point at any right wingers who pressured the estate, feel free to give us their names.

Until then, when I hear lions roar, I will assume the sound comes from lions and not anacondas.

I simply have never heard any outcry over these books and I assume if there was you would have posted a link to it one morning.

Do you disagree with the estate's decision to stop publishing these books?

(03-10-2021 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 10:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

Who do you think championed the removal of the books? Skinheads? Elves? Libertarians? Do those sound more likely than progressive sources?

Chinese hackers? Maybe Trump had a meeting with Russian secret agents to put that into motion?

Perhaps it happened because a convergence of the Sun and Aquarius?

What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

93, you hang your hat on the fact that the estate stopped the publishing of these six books, as if that proved that progressives had no hand in this event.

But nowhere have I seen any inkling that the estate one day got out of bed, smacked themselves on the forehead, and said "Damn! These books are racist!"

Somebody brought this to their attention. Somebody put some pressure on them to act.

Maybe they acted because they themselves are progressives. But it did not happen in a vacuum.

Now apparently these somebodies did not have names like Harris or Biden. But it is a very good bet that they were progressives and not Qanon. Why? Because censorship and cancel culture are progressive policies.

Just because we cannot, yet, point out specific progressives as the ones who pressured the estate does not mean there was no pressure from progressives.

But if you can point at any right wingers who pressured the estate, feel free to give us their names.

Until then, when I hear lions roar, I will assume the sound comes from lions and not anacondas.

You're not responding to 93, btw.

From the source itself:

Quote:Today, on Dr. Seuss’s Birthday, Dr. Seuss Enterprises celebrates reading and also our mission of supporting all children and families with messages of hope, inspiration, inclusion, and friendship.

We are committed to action. To that end, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of experts, including educators, reviewed our catalog of titles and made the decision last year to cease publication and licensing of the following titles: And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer. These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.

Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families.

https://www.seussville.com/statement-fro...terprises/

I'll as again, since Tanq, and now you, can not point to what progressives clamored for the Suess cancellation, and instead rely on the mythical boogieman of "progressives" that have no name.

I don't think anyone pressure the estate - be it progressives, conservatives, or Sneetches. I think they did what they said they did - went back over their catalogue and made an independent decision. That opinion could change if you could point to a tangible effort to advocated for the Suess estate to make the change.

(03-10-2021 09:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 12:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The concern over those Seuss books was the potential racist imagery ("Racism"). I'm not calling the books racist but that's the concern that made the estate pull them. The concerns over the CardiB song was racy lyrics ("Racy"). That's why I called it an apples to oranges comparison.

One correction: it's not quite right to refer to the song title as simply "racy". "Racy" denotes a close-to-the-borderline quality, similar to "risqué". By contrast, the title that Tanq referenced is hideous.

"hideous" seems pretty subjective TBH. I like "racy" better. Perhaps there is a more forceful term for "racy" but I don't think that "hideous" hits the mark.

Everybody would agree that the song is racy. Not everybody would agree that the song is hideous (to be clear the song is not my cup of tea).

(03-10-2021 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 10:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

Who do you think championed the removal of the books? Skinheads? Elves? Libertarians? Do those sound more likely than progressive sources?

Chinese hackers? Maybe Trump had a meeting with Russian secret agents to put that into motion?

Perhaps it happened because a convergence of the Sun and Aquarius?

What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

93, you hang your hat on the fact that the estate stopped the publishing of these six books, as if that proved that progressives had no hand in this event.

But nowhere have I seen any inkling that the estate one day got out of bed, smacked themselves on the forehead, and said "Damn! These books are racist!"

Somebody brought this to their attention. Somebody put some pressure on them to act.

Maybe they acted because they themselves are progressives. But it did not happen in a vacuum.

Now apparently these somebodies did not have names like Harris or Biden. But it is a very good bet that they were progressives and not Qanon. Why? Because censorship and cancel culture are progressive policies.

Just because we cannot, yet, point out specific progressives as the ones who pressured the estate does not mean there was no pressure from progressives.

But if you can point at any right wingers who pressured the estate, feel free to give us their names.

Until then, when I hear lions roar, I will assume the sound comes from lions and not anacondas.

I simply have never heard any outcry over these books and I assume if there was you would have posted a link to it one morning.

Do you disagree with the estate's decision to stop publishing these books?

I think it is a reach too far, but they have the right to stop -or continue - the publishing. They can publish or not publish as they wish.

My point was that they did not reach this decision in a vacuum. There was pressure. Any thoughts on where that pressure might have come from? Qanon? Oathkeepers? The Texas Rangers? My guess would be progressives. Yours?

(03-10-2021 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Who do you think championed the removal of the books? Skinheads? Elves? Libertarians? Do those sound more likely than progressive sources?

Chinese hackers? Maybe Trump had a meeting with Russian secret agents to put that into motion?

Perhaps it happened because a convergence of the Sun and Aquarius?

What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

93, you hang your hat on the fact that the estate stopped the publishing of these six books, as if that proved that progressives had no hand in this event.

But nowhere have I seen any inkling that the estate one day got out of bed, smacked themselves on the forehead, and said "Damn! These books are racist!"

Somebody brought this to their attention. Somebody put some pressure on them to act.

Maybe they acted because they themselves are progressives. But it did not happen in a vacuum.

Now apparently these somebodies did not have names like Harris or Biden. But it is a very good bet that they were progressives and not Qanon. Why? Because censorship and cancel culture are progressive policies.

Just because we cannot, yet, point out specific progressives as the ones who pressured the estate does not mean there was no pressure from progressives.

But if you can point at any right wingers who pressured the estate, feel free to give us their names.

Until then, when I hear lions roar, I will assume the sound comes from lions and not anacondas.

I simply have never heard any outcry over these books and I assume if there was you would have posted a link to it one morning.

Do you disagree with the estate's decision to stop publishing these books?

I think it is a reach too far, but they have the right to stop -or continue - the publishing. They can publish or not publish as they wish.

My point was that they did not reach this decision in a vacuum. There was pressure. Any thoughts on where that pressure might have come from? Qanon? Oathkeepers? The Texas Rangers? My guess would be progressives. Yours?

What if they used their personal agency and made the decision themselves?

Have you never made a business decision grounded in your own, personal agency and what your values were?

(03-10-2021 09:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 12:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The concern over those Seuss books was the potential racist imagery ("Racism"). I'm not calling the books racist but that's the concern that made the estate pull them. The concerns over the CardiB song was racy lyrics ("Racy"). That's why I called it an apples to oranges comparison.

One correction: it's not quite right to refer to the song title as simply "racy". "Racy" denotes a close-to-the-borderline quality, similar to "risqué". By contrast, the title that Tanq referenced is hideous.

"hideous" seems pretty subjective TBH. I like "racy" better.

Well, it doesn't matter that you "like" your term better: the whole idea of language (not least in judicial decision-making!) is that words are presumed to be used according to their understood meaning, not according to how you "like" them. Characterizing that title as "racy" is not a reasonable usage of "racy."

(03-10-2021 09:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps there is a more forceful term for "racy" but I don't think that "hideous" hits the mark.

Seriously? Good God, man -- what would it take????

(03-10-2021 09:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Everybody would agree that the song is racy.

Actually, nearly every educated English-speaker would agree that racy is a milder term, and that the title in question is beyond that.

(03-10-2021 09:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Not everybody would agree that the song is hideous (to be clear the song is not my cup of tea).

True, not everyone has good, or even decent, standards -- as the title itself proves. I try to. I thought you did as well.


For Pete's sake, all you had to say was "Yes, it goes beyond racy -- thanks for the correction." You didn't have to dig in your heels on such an inept stance.

(03-10-2021 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What mainstream progressives campaigned or argued to get the Dr Suess books banned?

93, you hang your hat on the fact that the estate stopped the publishing of these six books, as if that proved that progressives had no hand in this event.

But nowhere have I seen any inkling that the estate one day got out of bed, smacked themselves on the forehead, and said "Damn! These books are racist!"

Somebody brought this to their attention. Somebody put some pressure on them to act.

Maybe they acted because they themselves are progressives. But it did not happen in a vacuum.

Now apparently these somebodies did not have names like Harris or Biden. But it is a very good bet that they were progressives and not Qanon. Why? Because censorship and cancel culture are progressive policies.

Just because we cannot, yet, point out specific progressives as the ones who pressured the estate does not mean there was no pressure from progressives.

But if you can point at any right wingers who pressured the estate, feel free to give us their names.

Until then, when I hear lions roar, I will assume the sound comes from lions and not anacondas.

I simply have never heard any outcry over these books and I assume if there was you would have posted a link to it one morning.

Do you disagree with the estate's decision to stop publishing these books?

I think it is a reach too far, but they have the right to stop -or continue - the publishing. They can publish or not publish as they wish.

My point was that they did not reach this decision in a vacuum. There was pressure. Any thoughts on where that pressure might have come from? Qanon? Oathkeepers? The Texas Rangers? My guess would be progressives. Yours?

What if they used their personal agency and made the decision themselves?

Have you never made a business decision grounded in your own, personal agency and what your values were?

I think it way more likely that there was outside influence and outside pressure. Do you think they were the only ones who noticed the Asian kids were drawn with slanted lines for eyes? But if you can demonstrate, without selective editing, that they were totally uninfluenced by anybody or by anything but their own thoughts, please do so.

(03-10-2021 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What if they used their personal agency and made the decision themselves?

You mean, their PR firm? :)

(03-10-2021 10:03 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 09:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 12:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The concern over those Seuss books was the potential racist imagery ("Racism"). I'm not calling the books racist but that's the concern that made the estate pull them. The concerns over the CardiB song was racy lyrics ("Racy"). That's why I called it an apples to oranges comparison.

One correction: it's not quite right to refer to the song title as simply "racy". "Racy" denotes a close-to-the-borderline quality, similar to "risqué". By contrast, the title that Tanq referenced is hideous.

"hideous" seems pretty subjective TBH. I like "racy" better.

Well, it doesn't matter that you "like" your term better: the whole idea of language (not least in judicial decision-making!) is that words are presumed to be used according to their understood meaning, not according to how you "like" them. Characterizing that title as "racy" is not a reasonable usage of "racy."

(03-10-2021 09:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps there is a more forceful term for "racy" but I don't think that "hideous" hits the mark.

Seriously? Good God, man -- what would it take????

(03-10-2021 09:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Everybody would agree that the song is racy.

Actually, nearly every educated English-speaker would agree that racy is a milder term, and that the title in question is beyond that.

(03-10-2021 09:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Not everybody would agree that the song is hideous (to be clear the song is not my cup of tea).

True, not everyone has good, or even decent, standards -- as the title itself proves. I try to. I thought you did as well.


For Pete's sake, all you had to say was "Yes, it goes beyond racy -- thanks for the correction." You didn't have to dig in your heels on such an inept stance.

I thought we were having a friendly discussion about words!

I disagree that "hideous" hits the mark. Sorry that I disagree with your opinion on definitions but there's really no reason to get personal.

*edit* Millions and millions of people like the song so they would certainly not classify it as "hideous". That's why I think your term missed the mark. It's too subjective.

(03-10-2021 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]*edit* Millions and millions of people like the song so they would certainly not classify it as "hideous".

Millions and millions of people voted for Donald Trump -- twice!

(03-10-2021 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry that I disagree with your opinion on definitions but there's really no reason to get personal.

It's not a "disagreement" about an "opinion". "Racy" has a well-understood meaning, and you used it inaccurately. I fact, you essentially admitted that it is not an accurate characterization. Again, all you had to say was "Thanks for the correction."

(03-10-2021 10:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry that I disagree with your opinion on definitions but there's really no reason to get personal.

It's not a "disagreement" about an "opinion". "Racy" has a well-understood meaning, and you used it inaccurately. I fact, you essentially admitted that it is not an accurate characterization. Again, all you had to say was "Thanks for the correction."

I disagree that "hideous" works. As I stated, racy doesn't quite capture it but hideous misses the mark, IMO because it is way too subjective.

Thanks for the correction on "racy". I agree it doesn't completely represent just how over-the-top that song is sexualized.

(03-10-2021 10:12 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What if they used their personal agency and made the decision themselves?

You mean, their PR firm? :)

He's here all week, folks.

(03-10-2021 12:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I have yet to hear a single prominent Progressive call for the banning of any book. I don't know how these big companies decide how to market themselves and what decisions they make will be more attractive to their customers. Were there some voices that raised a fuss about Tanq's transgender book example? I imagine there were. Are these mainstream progressives? I'm sure they weren't.

I have yet to hear a single prominent Progressive call for a 'disruption' campaign against Chic-Fil-A or the Baker either.

You say you're SURE they're not 'mainstream' progressives. I'm pretty sure you don't even know WHO made the decision, or specifically why. I think it a pretty reasonable guess that the reason the decision was made was just as i said... and suppressing dialogue that paints trans people in a negative light absolutely IS a mainstream progressive ideal and I've heard MANY progressive leaders call for that.

Quote:How about when there is a a gay kiss on TV and the network gets a bunch of calls from Evangelicals? Are we to assume that Republicans are "working tirelessly" to eradicate gay people from the airwares?

ALL Republicans? No... but you can absolutely say that Evangelicals are... and by extension, evangelical Republicans.... who certainly ARE Republicans. SO yes, 'a subset of' Republicans ARE doing just that.

The above is why I don't understand your objections... except as a 'distinction without a difference' where it is SOME progressives or SOME liberals or SOME Democrats. It sure as hell isn't (generally) Republicans or Evangelicals who are pushing for having books with 'negative' connotations towards gays be removed from Amazon.

Why are you so against admitting that 'support for LGBTQ+ persons' is part of the progressive agenda (and a part I generally support) or that 'quieting negative stereotypes' is part of 'support for LGBTQ+ persons'?

The evangelical right agenda, I generally do not support... but they ARE part of 'the right'.

Quote:His initial post made it sound like progressives were having book burning parties. He didn't seem to be able to back that up so he pivoted to "Well... networks didn't cover the Biden scandal enough".

Well, I didn't read the whole thread as I said... but from what I saw when I came in, you were doing the same thing... acting as if Amazon removing a book 'couldn't possibly be' related to the progressive agenda.

If your point was to respond to what you considered to be a hyperbolic argument with one of your own, then I get the response. If it was to respond to one with something you actually believe to be a fact, I think you mostly supported the hyperbolic comment.

What I read him to say was more like... Amazon pulling books because of complaints by progressives... book burnings are next... which is certainly hyperbolic... but a more tame wording of it 'where does it stop?' is not really meaningfully different.

Quote:yes, see above.

lol

Quote:I don't think what Amazon did represents a progressive value. They probably decided that however many emails they received was more trouble than its worth for a book with what I assume were meager sales.

From which area of the political spectrum do you believe they were receiving however many complaints they received?

MOST items, especially most books on Amazon provide meager sales... and SOME because they are poor products and they get tons of complaints.... but they still have them.

The difference is this... Someone who is unhappy about his most recent purchase of Jeff Abbott's newest book (he wanted a different ending) isn't likely to accuse Amazon of supporting an agenda and cease all purchases from them. Amazon wouldn't pull a book for that reason.. they just wouldn't stock it themselves. If someone wants to buy it and someone wants to sell it, here is the platform. Its only when Amazon is being threatened that by selling this book, that they will lose OTHER purchases that they would remove such an item.

Last week, I received an email from 'progressives' (and was told of a similar plea on facebook) for people to boycott Amazon for a week in support of a progressive political agenda (unions).

Exact same thing from my perspective.

If you're suggesting that it was simply removed because it didn't sell well, that seems to be directly counter to reports.... which are evidence, but not proof. That said, see my reference above to a progressive agenda item re: Amazon. Amazon has FREQUENTLY been a target of progressives. They are apparently 'the big bad' to many... specifically and perhaps especially AOC (you wanted names)

Quote:

Quote:I seem to recall it was perfectly acceptable to use Hobby Lobby as an example of 'the Christian Right'.... or to protest chic-fil-a because of the way its owner spent his money.

OK... but how about if somebody said that Hobby Lobby = the Republican party?

Is that what someone said or are you arguing in the minutia??

I already said that Hobby Lobby = Evangelicals and Evangelicals are PART of the Republican party (most often)... so I think the above is true, depending on how you mean it.

To me, progressives are a subset of Democrats like Evangelicals are a subset of Republicans... but it certainly seems that progressives are wielding a whole lot more power within the Democratic party right now than Evangelicals do within the Republican party. In the 90's, that would have been the reverse. I don't really know WHICH subset of Republicans currently have the most sway... Libertarians, Evangelicals, Isolationists?? I think there are clearly some STATES or other areas where Evangelicals still have a lot of sway... but not as a nation. Alternatively, I think progressives are clearly and BY FAR the most powerful aspect of the left right now. If I'm wrong, that's fine... its an opinion... but you seem to act like they have no power in the party at all.

(03-10-2021 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree that "hideous" works.

That is indeed a matter of taste, and thus of opinion.

(03-10-2021 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the correction on "racy". I agree it doesn't completely represent just how over-the-top that song is sexualized.

In retrospect, I should have left it at that.

(03-10-2021 03:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2021 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree that "hideous" works.

That is indeed a matter of taste, and thus of opinion.

Right... my point is that your were making a subjective statement about the song.

If you were asked to provide an objective description of the song descriptions might include "racy" (I know... I know... it's not strong enough), "hyper-sexualized", or even "pushing the limits on what is generally considered acceptable".

When one uses terms like "hideous" you are inserting your opinion. I don't like the song but plenty of people apparently do. One man's trash is another man's treasure and all that.

Another cancellation

Mumphord and sons: endorsed the wrong book.