I would ban it because it is pure evil. There is no good at all in it.
Why can’t we legislate morality? We do it all the time.
Like it or not, if minoritires make that type of music more than others then they will be the rightful targets of that kind of legislation. However, I already saod I would ban a lot of country and other genres too.
That’s a slippery slope fallacy.
You are arguing for the music. Like it or not, you are arguing for the production and distribution of evil.
Despite your little stunt of posting some vulgar lyrics you still don’t have a concrete way of dealing with what you can “evil.” For instance, there are songs that have vulgar lyrics but are much less harmful than the theological issues with mainstream Christian songs. There are songs which are not at all shocking or wrong in their native language, but when translated cause audiences to be scandalized.
How far are you willing to go? There are many, many lyricless waltzes, sonatas and tangos meant to inflame the passions and encourage illicit activity. They were written for that very purpose. The culture was conditioned to be titillated by the interplay between the oboe and flute. Without that conditioning, we now see a piece of music near fit for a Sunday concert. Yet the composer had ill intentions. While someone who wrote a catchy “bump and grind” song just wrote a catchy ditty to be funny and perhaps ironic.
Banning also doesn’t address the core of the issue of why these songs are being produced…the anger behind it. Perhaps the most vulgar song I ever heard was one written by a 15yo Pueritican young man who, when he was 8 and his brother was 6, witness an ON DUTY drunk officer drive through his home’s fenced in front yard, killing his brother before his eyes. Not only was the officer never charged, but the family was never offered anything besides a fence repair, the officer never had any remorse, became sheriff and would even taunt this young man as a child about his little brother’s death. (one less Arian, he’d say…because he was a darker Puerterican and the little boy was fair)
To say that this young man had no right to produce an angry piece of music–and that this angry piece of music was not a representation of many of similar struggles would be denying the very experiences that they faced. Goodie-two-shoes banning would only have stopped the message of anger at the corrupt police state from (rightfully) spreading. Unfortunately, while this boy came to America, life in Puerto Rico is not much better today.
And that’s what I’m saying is the kind of censorship that you’re advocating would be a deep and huburistic judgment on something to which one would have little knowledge.
I also, in the beginning, stated that banning (especially legislated morality) is far different than prudence, which would guide us not to consume such things and to advise others not to.