He certainly lived a life most men dream about.

You can still laugh with the history of edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Hefner&oldid=802735236#Death

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Hefner&oldid=802735311#Death

lol hell

Look, I'm not a Liberal, these days at least, but can someone explain how this man actually made society better? I get he is iconic, but all he did was sexualize women more than before - is that a fair statement?

I like that he only went the softcore route, but is that his redeeming factor or claim to fame? I get the feeling it isn't. I've heard almost no criticism of his life's work no matter where I turn. It's like trying to find positive news on Trump, everyone just seems to be lock-step in agreement that he is a worthy historical figure...that is how the news has been coming across.

Am I the only one?

He published nude pictures of an underaged Brooke Shields. I mean REALLY underaged. Like before she had even developed.

Who really cares? Its not him who build up his brand but the tons of hot chicks who let themself be photographed for the magazine, many of them wouldnt get the same media attention if they would pass away.

He was a supporter of gay rights and equality in general. Yes he sexualized women but he was pretty much obsessed with sex which as far as I know isn't a crime if consensual. Did he start wars or try and control the way people think, no, just made a lot of money off soft porn. He has probably made a far greater contribution to society than many religious or political figures. Everyone knew what he wanted and his motivation in life, so a pretty rare person without a hidden agenda. He lived life for maximum enjoyment basically. Was their any real victims of his life? 

The most noteworthy thing mentioned there in my opinion, and I think others would agree, was being a supporter of gay rights.  Somehow this isn't front and center in the news of his passing...why? Maybe because it wasn't his claim to fame...if it's true, and I'll assume it is, that's great.

I will say that's great that he had an unhidden agenda, regardless of what it was. That I truly admire. But I still think that comes second to the agenda itself. I don't think Playboy, the corporation or its mansion, have gay rights at the top of their agenda otherwise it would have been a prominent staple of his brand during his lifetime. What I'm trying to say is that most people like him and his brand regardless of the gay rights agenda.

They like sex and sexy women.

So do I. I can't believe there isn't any backlash against his portrayal. He seems to be a pop star at best, but is treated like royalty