All from in this thread in !world@lemmy.world about a chant at a British music festival where an artist said "death, death to the IDF".
After other users were quoting that chant in the comments and had comments removed and banned, the hero of our story, @theacharnian@lemmy.ca (appearing as "acargitz") pointed out that under international law, fighting an occupying force is legitimate. But apparently not under world news rules, as their removed comments and the many explanations from mods make clear in the thread.
Equally against the rules is the call for the eradication of an organisation or business, even without an explicit call to violence against individual members of the business.
In the same thread: user @DeathToTheIDF@lemmings.world had comments removed for being anti-American "(again)", though I couldn't see the first time. It's not even clear to me how the removed comments were anti-American.
Bonus points for the "DC Comics" removal reason. Though this seems to be incompetence, rather than malice.
If you're going to be a pedant and demand a definition of 'violence' I'd say start with the dictionary. Unless you were dropped on your head as a child you should know what the word "violence" means.
But sure, I'll play along:
"So let's take another approach: let me make some statements and you can tell me which would or wouldn't be bannable for violence:"
First off, removable is not bannable. Don't confuse removing an offending comment with banning a user. Banning happens after multiple removals and warnings.
"A>Thats fucking disgusting."
Not on it's own, no. But if it were in context towards a protected group, then yes. Removable. We have removed many similar comments directed at trans individuals and communities for example, but wouldn't be removed for violence in those instances, rather transphobia or homophobia.
"That we as a society let someone live after doing that is obscene. We should all be ashamed."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"B>i think id kill the fucker, if i saw them doing that."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"C>if anyone is considering doing that, they should consider killing themselves first"
Advocating suicide is more serious, would get removed and likely temp banned. If the comment history showed a pattern of that it would be a permaban with no warning. We do not fuck around with encouraging suicide. Entirely too many cases of real world suicides driven by online ass-hattery.
"D>anyone who does this shoukd be hanged"
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"E>i didnt even know microwaves could squirt. Im gonna throw up so hard my downstairs neighbor drowns."
That's kind of objectively hilarious, but obviously hyperbole. I've personally used the phrase "threw up everything I've eaten since I was 12." Not biologically possible, but you get the idea.
"F>ill vote for anyone who promises to go to war with any country that allows thay"
I guess it depends on what the 'thay" is? Hard to tell from this.
"G>if i tried that, my jaw would be a fine red mist."
Again, depends on what the "that" is. Swallowing a shotgun? Suicide ideation, see above. But without that context, can't tell.
"H>there has to be a law against this. If there isnt, we need to fix that"
"You're right! There oughta be a law!"
https://youtu.be/SZ8psP4S6BQ#t=55s
"I>shit, this looks recent. I think i recognize the skyline in the background. Im calling the police. "
Not removable unless they specifically identify the person or place in the comment, then it would be removed for doxing. We had A LOT of that for some shithead white supremacist, people kept posting his home address in a variety of creative ways. Repeat offenders were banned. Wow, I don't even remember who it was now, that was a wild week or so.
"J>im going to find and kill this piece of shit."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"K>anyone who does that should be denied housing, food, and every other benefit of society."
In the old Icelandic sagas, they had this as a punishment for certain crimes, it was called being an outlaw. You were literally outside the law and had no legal rights or protections. If someone didn't like your face and decided they wanted to kill you, they would not be punished for it because you're an outlaw. Grettir's Saga man, good read! He got branded an outlaw for setting a house on fire and killing everyone inside. Lived longer as an outlaw than anyone else.
Not really a call for violence.
Edit:
"L>im going to order this guy some edibles and 20k calories of food every day until he has a heart attack and fucking dies."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"M>this meddlesome microwave atrocity doer is something id love to not share a world with."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
So deferring to an authority with the ability to do violence or creating a situation that would make an outcome roughly synonymous with violence are okay. Expressing a desire or intent, aside from the invocation of the violence of a higher power such as the state is fine. Maybe put that in the ru)es.