I am currently developing a concept.
We are dividing thematically into two factions. A “Clean” faction (reputation and seriousness come first) and an “Unclean” faction (facts before reputation).

This is about extremely sensitive topics (nothing illegal, of course!). Theoretically, one can report on anything, but often the backlash is much more massive than the actual report itself. “Avoiding” means either being extremely careful or pushing the topic into the unclean area.

A Nazi comparisons almost always lead to an immediate shutdown of the discourse, unless you are already firmly established. To stay on the safe side, we will instead use historical comparisons (e.g., Napoleon, Caesar, East Germany/GDR) or international examples. This rule applies to both the Clean and the unclean areas.

To be avoided (or only handled with extreme caution):

• Current wars (esp. Israel-Palestine, Ukraine-Russia)
• Religion (explicitly Islam/Islamism – high potential for escalation)
• Political parties (in Germany, it’s better to avoid the AfD to not be prematurely pigeonholed)
• LGBTQIA+
• Identity Ideology
• Ideologies (Capitalism, Communism, Feminism, Masculinism)
• Conspiracy theories

Nevertheless, we can still discuss controversial topics in the Clean faction where the factual benefit outweighs the risk. What would be the point of politics if we weren’t allowed to address such points? These topics will be tackled despite the headwind, but always strictly factually. Facts beat everything in the end.

• Gender roles
• Media & institutional criticism
• Health & Medicine (e.g., pharma lobbying)
• Climate
• Corruption & Elites (e.g., Bilderberg. Rule here: Only with hard sources/evidence, no pure speculation.)

Question for you: What do you think? Are there any other topics that should rather be avoided to appear “clean”? Is anything important missing from this list?