Again, I'm not a bearer of truth. I just have thoughts and opinions. Sometimes I can be right, and sometimes I can be wrong, like any human being. I understand what I wrote deeply affected you, and for that I apologize, it wasn't my intention. I hope we can exchange ideas without being needlessly pushy and aggressive to each other. I'll try to clarify what I meant. Art, by definition, has and will be made to disrupt, to upset, and to provoke thoughts. And when we're talking about something as transgressive as TCM, it should be made to disrupt and upset. While, like I said, the political correctness of the current climate is there for a reason, and has (and continue doing) a lot of good, I personally feel the pendulum has swung a bit into the "morally rigid" territory, though. Evidence of that is social media’s tendency to completely write off some things that are not totally meeting predetermined way of thinking and acting concerning some subjects. And when it happens, the discussion is often very quickly snuffed, and the culprits are often shamed into oblivion. Often it's warranted, but other times it's debatable. No let's circle back to TCM. To me transgressive art will always try to shake the status quo. And the status quo has a tendency to cover broad territories, including some that are covered under political correctness. My fear is that if transgressive art (and I see the original 1974 version of TCM as highly transgressive) crosses the limits that political correctness is imposing right now, it will be written off into oblivion without much opportunity of discussion or debate. So yeah, I do think that moral rigidness tendencies do harm art in some ways for this very reason. Sometime rightfully so, but sometimes I think some discussions should be happening more easily. Also, please keep in mind that I'm not from the US, and even though I'm fluent in English, it is not my first language. So I may have missed some of the "bullshit" you are seeing attached to the term.