I believe "denying a past violent event" is one of criteria for reporting harassment on Twitter. I can certainly understand that sentiment.
But it's borderline. If there is clear and widely-accepted evidence of a mass-casualty event caused by deliberate human actions, it is certainly traumatic to treat it in a cavalier manner (as in "did it really happen?"). On the other hand, if there is a healthy amount of doubt about the nature of the event, it having taken place can be admitted while, at the same time, discussing the underlying causes and the details of the event.
It's a tough one right now for me. I don't know how to treat people who may genuinely believe that the genuine atrocities committed by RF's troops in Ukraine do not amount to atrocities. Certainly rapes of children, summary executions of civilians at point-blank range, and tortures should not be treated as a norm by the civilized society.
But what if people denying them are truly in denial? What if they are not motivated by fervor and animosity of war (ginned by propaganda)? Should that matter? Should "polite" (as in politely-stated) denial of deliberate human-induced mass-casualty events still be covered under the rude and abusive flag?
Or is it too subjective and should be left to the subjective measures of voting? Voting is really not meant to judge the validity of the content (unless it's outrageous). It's fairly easy to create an answer which meets all the guidelines (has a few references and states the content in a neutral tone) which, nevertheless, does not reflect reality. And the neutrality of the tone and the references will probably be enough for the answer to gain a number of upvotes.
But with enough care, this allows for demagoguery of the kind that normalizes genocide denial and full historical revisionism. I don't think the votes alone can be relied-upon to always handle demagoguery.
Again, I myself am genuinely split on which side of the line this should fall. So I am hoping for some insight, supported with detailed reasons, rather than just endorsement or opposition to the view that it falls under the "rude" flag.