Clarification on what Rule 2 covers

[BurnBright]

I reported the following post:

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/hamas-assault-on-israel.122902/post-29383036

In particular, I viewed the following comment:

Article says that the US is talking to Israel about safe passage for Gaza civilians. Take this with a whole shaker of salt, please - I'm one for smashing Gaza, but I am skeptical Israel will hold to any promises it makes.

Click to shrink...

And to my eyes it seemed like saying that the person in question was pro-genocide, or at least mass killing, given that that's what 'smashing Gaza' would mean. I reported this and was told it did not violate Rule 2, or even the heightened standards put in place for the Active Conflicts subforum. In my report, I also asked for clarification on why it was not rule-breaking, if it was deemed not to be, since someone had already mentioned it had been deemed such, and I found that rather odd.

Would it then be acceptable for me to say "I'm one for smashing Jerusalem," in that thread? Or, if that would be disruptive, post a new thread on the merits of smashing Jerusalem?

If the mitigating circumstance is that the poster in question is ambiguously in favor of providing safe passage- which, frankly, is not even entirely apparent in the post, and doesn't seem to meet the heightened standards of the Active Conflicts subforum, then, would it be acceptable to post: "Personally, I think Jerusalem should be smashed, after corridors are opened for people to flee"?

If the answer to both of these questions are no, can you elaborate on the difference?

 

[Ford Prefect]

Squishy once expressed exasperation at what was then a trend of people not being satisfied with report rejections trying to get it reassessed by making a public thread about it, and I share that exasperation. I will review the post in question but that isn't an invitation for every user who isn't happy with a report not being actioned.