Are all communists the S word?

mwinner said:
All communists are slaughterhouses indeed.

StarfireDragon said:
These morals don't come from religion, they exist because we need them to create a functioning society.

Verthandi11 said:
but but ur avatar is aspiring for robert smith hair

Desolated said:
Otherwise, if it's consensual and they just don't want to have child etc, I don't care. Be Haru x Sora all you want. I won't look down on you, most other people probably will but I hope it isn't that bad.

Functioning? Or should I say, to prevent the bourgeoisie from being overthrown? Because that's what the social structure you defend so much, to keep their status quo as the ruling class.

StarfireDragon said:
@Desolated



Consensual or non consensual it still subverts the family structure. It should not be condoned under any circumstances.



Yes, functioning. A society cannot be prosperous if it is not built upon trust. The absolute MOST trustworthy place that one should ever feel like they belong, is with their family. To normalize intimate relationships with another person in the family is to subvert that trust.

Soverign said:
Lol. A system that is easily defeated by blue jeans and needs to be propped up by the West as controlled opposition.
https://www.heddels.com/2014/09/soviet-denim-smuggling-history-jeans-behind-iron-curtain/

vasipi4946 said:
Sssssshhhhhh

don't mention Mao and Ho Chi Minh were CIA Agents.

Soverign said:
So, you think communism is a joke?

g]https://comicsandmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/joker-i-do-and-im-tired-of-pretending-its-not-meme-blank-template-1.jpg[/i

Deploy the ADM-160 'Lenin' MALDS!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD

[yt]1VtNu7yFbpI[/y

StarfireDragon said:


I don't care about Trump. Though I would not call him a Communist.

Desolated said:

That's bullshit. The function of "family structure" is so that you can just have your kids inherit your private property so that they don't have to work as much as the rest of the people to earn capital, like Trump. Lots of people grew up in dormitories and orphanage just fine.

Somewhat agreed with the first statement (I prefer the word consent than trust since underages are ruled unable to properly consent), disagreed with the second. As long as it's consentual (which isn't the case of about more than 95% of incestuous relationship is), I ain't got no issue with it.

Idk why we're arguing tbh. You basically almost 100% agreed with my point except that you use the term trust instead.

Desolated said:


No because syndicalists are undialectical, idealistic, and has never built any successful society that lasts more than 3 years.

Soverign said:


Deploy the ADM-160 'Lenin' MALDS!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD

Two_wolves_in said:
All communists in rome are sluts that do nothing but drink , do drugs and fuck with just about anything and anyone they meet at raves, bars and other places people in the hookup culture go.

Is it true for your cities as well?

Two_wolves_in said:

At the first sight I thought that by S word you meant Soviet not Slut. Nowadays "Communists" are not even comparable to Communism from past it even doesn't go close to stuff I've heard about whenever I talked with my mother or grand parents who lived indeed in Communistic Poland and thankfully for me and my generation I don't need to experience this disgusting USRR ideology and propaganda like the previous generations.

The function of "family structure" is so that you can just have your kids inherit your private property so that they don't have to work as much as the rest of the people to earn capital, like Trump. Lots of people grew up in dormitories and orphanage just fine.

pizazz said:
So women are freely shared as public properties and the women must obey or they have to face various repercussions.

rian9x said:
waht the h*ck am i reading

this sounds like a MAL user's sexual fantasy

StarfireDragon said:


No no no, that is not at all right. Consent and trust are two completely different concepts. Especially when it comes to relationships. They work in tandem, as you cannot have a long lasting relationship without both of them. But consent on it's own means nothing. You can consent to something, and them come to regret it later. If there is no moral failing of the breach of trust , them nobody can be held accountable for their actions. Trust, when applied to the family structure, is trust that your family will not breach the confines of their roles as protectors. Family looks out for each other, they don't become intimate with one another. This is normal human behaviour.

And good lord what isnt a capitalist psy op with you? You really mean to tell me, that the only reason the family structure exists is to inherit property? What about all throughout history where private property didn't exist, and everything was run by a dictator? What about tribes who lived off the land? Did the family structure not exist? Of course it did! Its nessecarry for survival.

pizazz said:
@Desolated

Your opinion about China is alright but this cultural aspect is where you fall short of becoming a true proponent of China. You believe in obsolete communism while the country has moved on toward communism that is based on traditional values.

"Members of the Communist Party of China are Marxists, who uphold the scientific theories of Marxism, and adhere to and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics. But Chinese communists are neither historical nihilists, nor cultural nihilists. We always believe that the basic principles of Marxism must be closely married to the concrete reality of China, and that we should approach traditional native culture and cultures of all countries in a scientific manner, and arm ourselves with all outstanding cultural achievements humanity has created. In the long historical practice of leading the revolutions, nation-building and reforms, the Chinese communists have always been faithful inheritors and upholders of the country’s fine cultural traditions. We have consciously absorbed nutrition from the teachings of Confucius to those of Sun Yat-sen."
Xi Jinping
http://library.chinausfocus.com/article-1534.html



Family is a basic unit of human society and it serves as the foundation of a nation. The arrangement provides a healthy environment and unconditional support for all of its members. Without families, there will be a lot of problematic individuals in society and it will greatly undermine the strength and the stability of a nation.

But the classic Marxists frame it as a private institution to be abolished. Basically they advocate that oppression is not only economic but it's also instilled in the culture. They tell people that family structure is oppressive to women and traditional sexual morality is repressive to both sexes. Thus under the ideology, polygamy, group sex, and even incest are viewed as the rightful expression of liberation. They argue that social problems are mainly caused by private ownership and if the private property becomes public, people will not fight over it. So women are freely shared as public properties and the women must obey or they have to face various repercussions. This is what happened in the Soviet era and over time it led to social disintegration. There were many abandoned babies at the time, it was a total moral collapse.

You cannot replace genuine relationships with parents and children with artificial ones. While the latter seems similar in structure, it devoids unity and identity. You cannot expect people to be happy in that arrangement let alone a nation to last with that weak foundation. China and Russia are embracing traditional values and doing great, while the USA has lost its cultural identity and been destroying itself from within.

Without families, there will be a lot of problematic individuals in society and it will greatly undermine the strength and the stability of a nation.

But the classic Marxists frame it as a private institution to be abolished. Basically they advocate that oppression is not only economic but it's also instilled in the culture. They tell people that family structure is oppressive to women and traditional sexual morality is repressive to both sexes. Thus under the ideology, polygamy, group sex, and even incest are viewed as the rightful expression of liberation. They argue that social problems are mainly caused by private ownership and if the private property becomes public, people will not fight over it. So women are freely shared as public properties and the women must obey or they have to face various repercussions. This is what happened in the Soviet era and over time it led to social disintegration. There were many abandoned babies at the time, it was a total moral collapse.

So your mom shouldn't be intimate with your dad? Lol.

The Hunter-Gatherer need cooperation for survival, not "family structure". Cooperation isn't something you can only do with your nuclear family, but with anyone from your tribe.

Also private property predates capitalism. It has been there since the agricultural society started to rise. So like what you said about dictators or monarchs, they need these "family structure" so that their kids (mostly oldest son) can inherit their power and wealth once the king died.

But hey, you're that guy who thinks that public school needs to be abolished (which is infinitely stupid imo). I believe that every rivate school needs to be abolished and every school needs to be a boarding school where living in dormitory is mandatory.

StarfireDragon said:
@Desolated



Good lord what a childish response. You know very well what I meant. The fact that you are trying to hand waive incest like this, by being coy, is proving my point.



You know what helps people cooperate? Having morals. Developing a high trust society. And no, not just a "consensual" society. Actual trust. And we can start by making it a point to not fuck your siblings.



I mean, technically they don't. They could inherit it to anyone. The reason why such importance is put on the children of that individual is because we, as humans, have an intrinsic connection with our family. The importance of family predates ALL of that. And so when inheritance became a thing, well, it's a no brainer. But I guess if you don't respect family at all I can see why that is puzzling.



The Communist who regularly sucks the CCP's dick said I have an "infinitely stupid" take. I will literally never recover.

Nekoburger said:


Communists are collectivists - their main focus is on the state rather than individuals. Donald Trump stands for individualism and privatism, so he's pretty much the exact opposite of a communist. Being mentioned in Epstein's black book is not exactly indicative of whether you are a communist or not. You can be a rotten person regardless of your political stance, though in general communism do seem to be more prone to corruption.

deg said:
@Desolated

is not that far fetch though? Fully Automated Luxury Communism and Post Scarcity Economy is exactly about free stuff and carefree life?

"The most commonly reported incest occurs when the mother sees her son masturbate as a teenager and tells him, "It's not good to do it alone. Your IQ becomes lower. I will help you," or "You cannot study if you cannot have sex. You may use my body," or "I don't want you to get into trouble with a girl. Have sex with me instead."

The researchers found that Japanese mothers and sons often sleep in the same bed and have sex together. According to the phone interviews, Japanese mothers teach their sons how to masturbate, helping them to achieve first ejaculation in much the same manner as they earlier helped them with toilet training.

In a recent Japanese book, based on one hundred incest reports, confirms these observations, including the unusually high rate of mother - son incest."

StarfireDragon said:


Hilarious being lectured by morals by the one who openly advocates incest. You apply morals to amoral systems like economics, and yet you are perfectly fine with perverting social structures for your own hedonistic gains. These morals don't come from religion, they exist because we need them to create a functioning society.

The initial ritual of Aboriginal boys is accomplished by throwing them into a trench called “The Old Woman” with a bull-roarer called “The Mother” (her womb), repeating their birth by going through a birth tunnel with an umbilical rope attached, being covered by “the menstrual blood that can cause you to die,” and then sub-incising them with “a slit made on the underside of his penis” that is said to create a powerful vagina.109 The men then have intercourse in the split on the underside of the penis, “like a split-open frankfurter.”

New Guinea mothers constantly “rub the penes of their infant sons [and] the little boys…have erections” while they sleep naked together at night. One boy described to Poole how whenever his mother was depressed or angry she often “pulled, pinched, rubbed, or flicked a fingernail against his penis” until he cried, afraid it might break off. “It hurts inside,” he said. “It bleeds in there and hurts when I pee…Mother not like my penis, wants to cut it off.”37 Males also masturbated and sucked children’s genitals, both sexes, using the child as a maternal breast as all pedophiles do.38 Mothers also masturbate and kiss the vagina of baby girls.39 Malinowski reports watching the widespread sucking of genitals and intercourse between children in Melanesia, encouraged by parents, so that most girls are raped by the time they are seven years old.40 New Guinea fathers rarely care for their little children, but when they do they mainly fondle their genitals, using the child as a breast-object “because they say they get sexually aroused when they watch them nurse.”

Anthropologists sometimes state without evidence that the continuous oral rape by men of boys in New Guinea is “enthusiastically enjoyed” by the boys, who are “eager to suck” men’s penises, and that it has “a positive effect on the boy’s development.”47 The boys are also bled profusely by men by thrusting sharp leaves back and forth in their nostrils to remove the polluted mother-blood inside them, sometimes even subincising the penis, cutting it until it splits open, calling the cut a “boy’s vagina,” and having intercourse in it.48 Anthropologists describing this endless fellatio and genital mutilation of boys do not call it rape, stating instead that “the great majority of Sambia boys regularly engage in fellatio for years [because thereby they] learn how to be men, how to protect themselves from dangers of pollution.”49 Both men and women regularly fondle and mouth little boys’ penises.50 Girls, too, are routinely raped and often have their vaginas mutilated in tribal cultures—again because of extreme gender uncertainties, saying their clitoris must be removed because otherwise it would grow to be a foot long and they could then dominate men—plus it helps prevent girls from being “too sexual.”51 Older children routinely gang rape younger boys and girls, a practice reported by anthropologists with some neutral phrase like “they are typically initiated into intercourse by older and more experienced child,” a practice termed by one anthropologist as “healthy” because it gives the child “multiple experiences of sexual pleasure.”52

You know what helps people cooperate? Having morals. Developing a high trust society. And no, not just a "consensual" society. Actual trust. And we can start by making it a point to not fuck your siblings.

I mean, technically they don't. They could inherit it to anyone. The reason why such importance is put on the children of that individual is because we, as humans, have an intrinsic connection with our family. The importance of family predates ALL of that. And so when inheritance became a thing, well, it's a no brainer. But I guess if you don't respect family at all I can see why that is puzzling.

Desolated said:

That's bullshit. The function of "family structure" is so that you can just have your kids inherit your private property so that they don't have to work as much as the rest of the people to earn capital, like Trump. Lots of people grew up in dormitories and orphanage just fine.

Somewhat agreed with the first statement (I prefer the word consent than trust since underages are ruled unable to properly consent), disagreed with the second. As long as it's consentual (which isn't the case of about more than 95% of incestuous relationship is), I ain't got no issue with it.

Idk why we're arguing tbh. You basically almost 100% agreed with my point except that you use the term trust instead.

Velsria said:


80% of rapists come from fatherless families.
70% of male suicide victims come from fatherless families.
70% of criminals come from fatherless families.
Go and tell me again that family structure only exists for capital


Just because 1/3 of the people growing without a proper family is fine doesn't mean that the majority doesn't become socially unacceptable.

Family is important and natural, accept that you communist fucks.

Satoru Saito, head of the sociopathology department at the Psychiatric Research Institute of Tokyo, doubts that mother-son incest is any more common in Japan than elsewhere. But, he says, 'emotional incest' between mothers and their sons is almost a defining feature of Japanese society - 'the entire culture has this undertone'.

It is a vicious circle, says Dr Saito. Women who rarely see their husbands except late at night when they come home after drinking with workmates automatically funnel their emotions towards their children, particularly towards their sons.

The sons grow up with over-indulgent mothers who smother them in affection, preventing them from developing emotional independence. The sons accept the power their mothers have over them, and, when they begin dating, they naturally look for another woman to mother them.

This maza-con (mother complex) is a ritual complaint of young Japanese women seeking a husband. But as soon as they get married, they inevitably transfer the emotions that their husbands will not absorb to their children. And so the cycle perpetuates itself.

'The Japanese man doest like responsibility,'. 'He is always controlled by someone else: his mother, his teacher, his boss in the company. I call this the ofukuro (pouch) function - he seeks to be protected in a maternal pouch all the time. We call our school the 'mother school'; employees regard their company as some kind of mother figure.'

The mom complex even extends to the state, whose organs of control - police, tax inspectors, railway guards -treat citizens like precious children, in constant need of surveillance and gentle chiding.

StarfireDragon said:

as centrally planned economies will never reach the intended utopia.

They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah.

Velsria said:


80% of rapists come from fatherless families.
70% of male suicide victims come from fatherless families.
70% of criminals come from fatherless families.
Go and tell me again that family structure only exists for capital


Just because 1/3 of the people growing without a proper family is fine doesn't mean that the majority doesn't become socially unacceptable.

Family is important and natural, accept that you communist fucks.

The CIA drew no conclusions about the nutritional makeup of the Soviet and American diets but commonly accepted U.S. health views suggest the Soviet diet may be slightly better.

rian9x said:
waht the h*ck am i reading

this sounds like a MAL user's sexual fantasy

Some of the ideologues even suggested living in a commune in which "a common dining room, common life, common sex and child care." It even reached the point of calls to "make all women public property."

“The current morality of our youth, in brief, is as follows,” said the well-known communist Smidovich in the newspaper Pravda (March 21, 1925). This concept has become an axiom, and abstinence is considered as a limitation inherent in bourgeois thinking.If a man lusts for a young girl, whether she is a student, a worker or even a girl of school age, then the girl is obliged to submit to this desire, otherwise she will be considered a bourgeois daughter, unworthy of being called true communist

The next author, addressing the same editorial office of the Pravda newspaper, wrote: “How can we satisfy natural needs? labor victories! Eros of the revolution should help the youth to build a bright communist tomorrow!"

Among the Komsomol youth, the so-called "evenings" gained popularity, at which young people "tried" girls. Young people came to the Komsomol committee to study the class struggle, the hegemony of the proletariat, and also to get acquainted with the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin. Well, after that, the Komsomol leader gave the guys the right to choose a partner among the Komsomol women who came to the meeting, there were also massive sexual and ideological orgies. Women are the property of all working people

Marx and other communists played up phenomena like adultery, prostitution, and illegitimate children in order to lend credence to their anti-marriage and anti-family theories — as though the existence of such vices meant that the prevailing social norms were hypocritical and corrupt.

The gradual degeneration of morality that began in the Victorian era eroded the sacred institution of marriage and led people further away from divine teachings. Communists urged women to violate their marital oaths for the sake of their supposed personal happiness, but the result was just the opposite.

Communism’s “solution” for oppression and inequality amounts to nothing more than dragging down the standards of human morality to hellish depths. It turns behavior once universally condemned as ugly and unforgivable into the new norm. In the “equality” of communism, all are marching toward the same fate — destruction.

The specter of communism created the mistaken belief that sin is not caused by the degeneration of morality, but by social oppression. It led people to look for a way out through turning their backs on tradition and moving away from the divine. It used the beautiful rhetoric of freedom and liberation to advocate feminism, homosexuality, and sexual perversion. Women have been stripped of their dignity, men have been robbed of their responsibility, and the sanctity of the family has been trampled upon, turning the children of today into the devil’s playthings.

Desolated said:

What kind of traditional values? China did NOT embrace every "traditional values" it have. The Cultural Revolution has some positives that people stopped believing in superstitious things, such as the number "4" being seen as unlucky nunber just because it rhymes with "death" in Chinese, etcetc. Had it not happened, then some people there might've still believe that cow dung can cure COVID, like in India. Or other social issues such as financially coerced polygamy, etcetc.

Also I don't simply agree with everything the CPC has done. I have spoken about this a lot that their Foreign policy during the Cold War (e.g. too much tailing the US, attacking Vietnam, supporting Pol Pot, etcetc) are just indefensible.

No? I argue that boarding schools are great, and would create even less problematic individuals. That way everyone is living in a more equal footing than with their nuclear families.


Also no? Never once I have said nor defend idea that would make woman, or any human being in that regard, a "public property".

It's more of if they want to sleep with a lot of people, as long as everyone involved consented to it (without being forced by financial conditions like the case of prostitution), it's not problematic. However this is not the case under most of the occasions. Which is why I'm advocating for it to not be encouraged until the time capitalism is fully abolished.

What you're describing is just a society where people have no social respnsibility at all, which is yes, it's doomed to fail. But social respnsibility isn't something that's only can exist if family institution exist.

When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other 'bourgeois' institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. 'To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,' declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term 'illegitimate children.' This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it, and now the Soviet Government boasts that Russia is the only country where there are no illegitimate children. The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation, provided she has no other means of livelihood.

At the same time a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.

'Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another,' asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. 'They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support! (There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts. It is claimed by many Communists that the break-up of the family is responsible for a large percentage of these children.)

The peasant villages have perhaps suffered most from this revolution in sex relations. An epidemic of marriages and divorces broke out in the country districts. Peasants with a respectable married life of forty years and more behind them suddenly decided to leave their wives and remarry. Peasant boys looked upon marriage as an exciting game and changed wives with the change of seasons. It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions. As the peasants of Borisovo-Pokrovskoie bitterly complained: 'Abortions cover our villages with shame. Formerly we did not even hear of them.' But the women, in self-defense, replied: 'It's easy for you to talk. But if you just tried to bear children yourselves you would sing a different song.'

Several peculiar abuses sprang up in the country districts in connection with the shifting marriage regulations. Many women of light behavior found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children. In some cases peasants have been obliged to sell their last cow or horse in order to settle such alimony claims. The law has created still more confusion because it is retrospective in its operation, so that women can claim support for children born many years ago.

In the early stages of the Revolution the Communists held the theory that children should be reared and cared for by the State. But it soon became evident that the State, especially in war-torn and impoverished Russia, was financially quite incapable of assuming such a heavy burden of responsibility. The figure of ten thousand foundlings, reported for thirty-two provinces of the Soviet Union over a period of six months, illustrates the danger that the present large number of vagrant homeless children may be swelled because of the inability or unwillingness of parents to provide for the offspring of temporary connections.

Velsria said:


Shut the fuck up manipulating idiot, I said what I said and nothing more stop extrapolating bullshit you dumb dishonest fuck.

struggler_sensei said:
how can communism's main focus be on the state when communism aims to abolish the state?

Nekoburger said:

They don't really have that aim though. It's all semantics. Making everything "common property" effectively means giving the state total control, since the state IS the people in the mind of a commie. The end result is invariably a larger and more totalitarian state (but also great tank-lolis, so it's not all bad 😇)

StarfireDragon said:
This is normal human behaviour.

Smith was pessimistic about the future of abolition. He argued that slavery was both ubiquitous and inevitable: “Slavery takes place in all societies at their beginning, and proceeds from that tyranic disposition which may almost be said to be natural to mankind…It is indeed all-most impossible that is should ever be totally or generally abolished” (LJ(B) 134, 102). Smith saw the increasing wealth of nations as conducive to more slavery, not less—a rich society can afford to have more slaves than a poor one, and domination is something that he believed people value. In fact, “the greater freedom of the free, the more intollerable is the slavery of the slaves” (LJ(B) iii.111).

Velsria said:


Keyboard warriors stash thousands of links in their bookmarks having wet dreams for the day they will be able to finally use them to strengthen their argument.

Or he may just be a keyboard ninja and not a warrior, the difference is that the ninja can say every kind of bullshit he wants and still manages to find sources for everything, after all I'm plenty sure there's even websites and blogs saying the earth is flat, so anything can be "proved" with a Google search

There are many traditional values that I think would be good to be implemented in contemporary China but to avoid going off tangent I'd stick with the importance of family. Central in Confucian thinking is filial piety, basically it means that children should respect their parents and elderly people. If that simple concept is implemented in society at large, it will result in a stable and harmonious society based on a strong hierarchy. It's a stark contrast with the main ideology in the West that place emphasis on individuals and encourages them to pursue their own needs, which result in a chaotic and degenerate society.

With communities at its base, the country will stand even when the government is obliterated. There will be a strong military that fight for their kin, in contrast with mercenaries that don't even know what the heck they're fighting for and more importantly for whom they fight. Also, the destruction of families will only benefit the globalists and the economic elites because that way people wouldn't have identity and a sense of belonging. Before long, national borders would be eliminated and the divided people would be easy to control as they have nothing to depend on beside the institutions and medias that are controlled by a certain group.

The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation, provided she has no other means of livelihood.

Many women of light behavior found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children. In some cases peasants have been obliged to sell their last cow or horse in order to settle such alimony claims.

Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.

'Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another,' asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. 'They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support!

https://www.theepochtimes.com/chapter-seven-destruction-of-the-family-part-i_2661675.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/chapter-seven-destruction-of-the-family-part-ii_2661712.html

Controversial/sensitive topics liable to incite rule violations (trolling, flaming, abuse) are no longer allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, topics which:
a. aim to profile/stereotype, or question the legitimacy of, people based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, xenophobia, religion, etc.
b. discuss highly-debated social issues; e.g. abortion, sexual assault, immigration, etc.
c. focus on political ideologies and events; e.g. Nazism, fascism, world leaders, controversial laws/lobbies, etc.