[DanBC]

You don't seem to understand that threats of violence are what we're talking about. Do you really not understand that saying you're going to rape someone is a threat of violence?

The article says:

> Other Jewish writers have faced more serious attacks: death threats, anti-Semitic cartoons, images of concentration camp ovens and executed Jews, threatening emails, even home phone calls.

> Michael received [...] Trolls threatened him: "'When the time comes, the Jews are going to be in trouble, lined up,'" Michael recalls. "That kind of tone. Random shit by people thinking it's funny Jews were being targeted."

[michaelbuddy]

you've certainly mentioned some strong examples. However, it's not the same as real violence.

think of these two statements, jokes whatever you want to call it.

"what do you call a hundred thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start" A joke we've all heard.

Now, same joke 'What do you call a hundred thousand Jews at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

Now which one is hate speech? Both? None? Should history be the only basis for whether jokes are permitted or not? What about who delivers it and why?

I'm not asking you to really answer me here, but it's worth thinking about. And I think platforms banning language simply will get it wrong. Human mods will get it wrong, computer mods will get it wrong.

Again, I'm going to go to the platforms where speech is allowed because of the nuance of humor, of conversation. And especially where personal experience is valid even when it appears biased or hateful.