If you grind people into a paste long enough, eventually some of them may object in one manner or another.

If you can't think of a single occurrence in history that directly disproves your proposed guideline, it's time to drop whatever you're doing and study history.

If you can think of one, then you shouldn't be proposing introduction of guidelines that are blatantly false. Or would you like a "1+1 is not 2" guideline to accompany it?

Do you feel the same way about comments that support the US military action in Iran? Why or why not?

I agree with the idea that calls for violence are bad; however most people in the world are more than happy to support both violence and calls for same against people and organizations they believe to be sufficiently significant threats.

Are calls for violence against Hitler during WW2 bad? How about the Japanese imperial navy?

How about calls for violence against Putin during his war of aggression?

This isn’t rhetoric; I’m just pointing out that it isn’t as black and white as people seem to make it. (It is black and white for me, as I’m with Asimov on the matter, but it isn’t for most humans.)

Are calls for violence bad when you're calling for throwing a molotov cocktail at a child? At an adult? At a serial killer? At someone who's about to shoot you unprovoked? At someone who murdered your family? At someone who's about to?

If you said "yes" to all of the above, I'd love to know your reasoning.