Let me preface this by saying that we've got to understand that someone somewhere will find something offensive in what you write if they really want to, no matter how tenuous, they'll find a way. I know you're asking for generics but I want to talk specifically about the post you're referring to.

If it wasn't clear through my comments, I was fine with the poem being used in the context that it was. Some of the arguments I saw levelled against it were:

The issue to me is - similar to calling people "literal nazis" on the internet - that first of all the situations such statements are pasted on generally don't deserve it. And furthermore they show a great misunderstanding, historical ignorance or what not about the atrocities faced by those who underwent the actual Nazi regime.

The OP wasn't calling SE Nazis at all - and this was confirmed by the OP too - the poem symbolizes the oppression faced by the Jews at the hand of Nazis, yes, no one is taking away from that fact. In its deeper meaning it also symbolizes, quite clearly, censorship, which is inline with the meaning I took from the usage of the poem within the context of the original question and answer.

It also trivializes one of the worst, if not the worst, atrocity in human history by comparing it to our issues here.

No, it doesn't.

You have to contextualize the poem. Taking the meaning and connotations of a poem and applying it to a different scenario does not take away from its original value. In fact, it speaks volumes of the poem, the fact that it can be used in other scenarios shows the depth of it.

Imagine talking to a holocaust survivor and saying "that's nothing, did you ever have your diamond removed on SO?" ... you don't get to trivialize it like that.

Again, you need to contextualize the post yourself. No one would do that, ever, I hope. Just because the scenarios don't compare it doesn't mean the poem can't fit for anything else.

At the heart of it, I guess it's open to interpretation, I have no doubt people will disagree with what I've written and that's fine. To quote Shog9:

English sucks, and then you die - Source

No, this is getting absurd.

But your head isn't quite above water here either @iBug. Please consider this correction in light of the fact that I am speaking as somebody who used Niemöller's poem himself in the context of the present brouhaha. I'll explain in a minute why I think that part was fine (and its deletion unwarranted).

First of all, re-posting something a moderator deleted (even if they were misguided to do so) is never a good way to solve things. Flagging for review can work, asking on meta about whether it was okay or not is fine, but just re-posting something is pretty much never okay.

Additionally the phrase you stuck on to your usage of the poem was itself offensive and I would have supported the "censorship" of that kind of language. In my moderator days I would have found it to be in violation of "be nice".

Compare:

• "The argument you made in this post is utterly unreasonable because..."
• "Of all the unreasonable turds you are the worst, just look at your argument..."

Do you see how both of these statements convey strong disapproval of an argument presented by the other side, but one adds a level of personal attack and is offensive for more than just the content? The phrase you added on to your re-posted answer is more like the second of these things. It was derogatory towards people (even if not a specific person).

Back to Niemöller.

I believe the people that find its use inappropriate should step back and do a little research on his life and own intentions for the poem. Yes, it brings up an issue much more serious than the current situation — arguably one of the worst atrocities in history. Stack Exchange falling victim to the spirit of the current age and its current gender 'wokeness' mess is hardly an atrocity. I'd say it is 'atrocious' but not even measured on the scale used to talk about 'atrocities'.

So why did I myself use that poem in regard to the current situation? Because I believe the author would have appreciated it. The poem has been paraphrased and recast so often that it takes effort to find the original wording. And you know what? Even the original author changed the wording a number of times to contextualize it for different situations. In his own post war use distributing the poem his point was never to confine it only as a memorial to one tragedy. He used it to encourage people to speak out for what they know was right earlier rather than later knowing full well that their contexts would be different from his. You don't have to go to a prison camp to learn a lesson from Martin, and it is okay to take the lessons he learned the hard way to keep us farther from big trouble than we would otherwise be. The poem talks about the long slippery slope leading up to before real atrocities occur and his words encourage taking action to stand up for others earlier rather that later — and when there is an injustice done to somebody other than yourself.

That's why I used it in my resignation, and it looks like your original paraphrasing of it was used in a similar spirit. There should have been no problem with that part (again I think your re-post & edit crossed a line). That SE has stopped being a space where people can disagree reasonably about serious topics is ... why any of this an issue in the first place.

Responsible communication takes two to tango. A good communicant will, of course, measure their words by how they thinks they will will be received. They are unwise not to consider feedback from listeners and adjust. But hearers also need to consider feedback on what was meant and "hear" that. The trap is set when one side trumps the other and forces their hand. If the hearer's perception is unreservedly allowed to trump the speaker's intention (as has been codified in popular culture in the last 2 decades and more recently around this place) then meaningful disagreement is dead. And when when not just the addressed 2nd party but all 3rd party observers can chip in and the opinion of whoever is most "offended" is asserted forcefully on the 1st party to say or not say things, then you can dig a grave and label it "meaning".

P.S. The same goes for your deleted answer on this question @LangLangC. You quoted my use of the poem and I completely get where you were going with the argument in general ­— but you shot yourself in the foot by leading off with inflammatory derogatory language. Cussing out the other side of a debate (even if you censor the actual letters or words) is not going to get your point across, it is only going to make it easier to criticism and dismiss. I would have myself flagged that post as offensive even though I agree with the overall perspective you were answering from.

The poem "First they came to ..." is used around the world not to refer to the Holocaust, but to critisize the attitude "they may be evil, but they came for others, not for me, so I don't care". It critisizes being indifferent about problems of others not only on moral grounds, but on the grounds of practicality: if you ignore their problems, their problems will eventually become yours. It gives reason for cynical people to care about others. It's one of the roots of atheistic morality, logical morality.

You think the poem critisizes the evil force that wipes out one group after another? It doesn't. It condemns those who keep silence, those who watch others suffer and do nothing, those who come up with excuses for not acting. This is why Goodwin's law doesn't apply here. The evil force isn't the target.

The message is so strong and universal that I find it unacceptable to demand linking it solely to the original context. There's no other quote, so widely known, so widely understood, that sends the same message. Long after World War II becomes another distant part of human history many centuries later, the poem will still be remembered.

You may consider rephrasing the poem a blasphemy, but in fact it's the best praise, the best recognition a poem can get. Reaching the meme status is the strongest testament of the poem's universal meaning and understanding. It doesn't devalue its original context, it adds to it.

We, humans, must face problems together as one, and quoting the poem in any form makes us remember why.

You should always care about how your posts might affect others

That is part of being part of a community. Words and actions have effects on people, and if we want to work together we should be trying to minimise the negative effects we have on others. That is part of being Nice:

Whether you've come to ask questions, or to generously share what you know, remember that we’re all here to learn, together. Be welcoming and patient, especially with those who may not know everything you do.

That isn't to say that it is always inappropriate to say something that offends someone, because that is largely unavoidable. But when people speak up and make their concerns heard you are expected to listen and learn and try to fix the issue if you can.

This isn't only to benefit potential people that might be hurt, it benefits you as well. Presumably you are writing something to say something, to communicate to other people. If you truly want to communicate with people effectively, considering how they might react to what you have to say is a very good step to take. And acting on those thoughts will help improve your communication with those people.

Of course this sets up a balance between what we want to say (and how we want to say it) and other people's feelings. And there is always a balance between the two. There's no clear point at which one overrides the other so we each have to constantly assess how best to handle the balance for ourselves and for our communities. But a necessary starting point is that we listen to each other when someone speaks up.

About the poem

This specific example you used a poem that unintentionally, to a good number of people (including myself), compared SE to Nazis and Monica to a holocaust victim. We don't allow people to compare people to Nazis for the exact reason that it never does anything good for a conversation. Additionally, this seemed like a poor comparison when talking about what ended up being a small online community and one prominent volunteer being arguably hurt. The hurt is real, but the comparison to the holocaust puts it over into inappropriate for me. And using such a loaded poem is unlikely to lead to any kind of productive discussion.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that everyone who disagreed with your posting this was part of one religion. You have no idea what religion, if any, I ascribe to. And it would be impossible for you to know that since I have never told you. (Hint: I don't fit into the box you painted everyone into). Assuming this is at the very least likely to lead you to the wrong conclusions about people's actions.

The better option is to actually listen to what people are saying. People opened up in the comments and let you know why they thought it was inappropriate, listen to them. Learn from them. Find a way to adapt your message such that it is not offensive to a significant portion of people on the site. You can easily convey the message of the poem without the controversy in any number of ways.

It's also worth noting that your answer had an issue at one point in where you were actively seeming to be aggressive towards people expressing disagreement for your use of the poem, and it remained up for a good amount of time which may have contributed to some people's view of the answer being rude. You did, however remove that line after it was pointed out, which was an excellent thing to do (and who among us hasn't written something out of frustration that we later regret?).

In the future, instead of pressing for deletion I'd rather someone was given (and took) the opportunity to rephrase and change their answer in response to feedback and thus improve it and their message. We should encourage people to do this when we think it might be productive or when something might be salvaged.

It seems straightforward to me. You wrote something not realizing that some people felt it was inappropriate for the context you used it in, you were informed that it was offensive and it was removed. A person that’s interested in communicating will find a different way to express their point so that it is understood by as many people as possible.

There’s no reason to get defensive about a simple mistake. There’s no reason to try to catalog everything that might be offensive. Write what you think is polite and be understanding when someone explains that you unintentionally struck a nerve.

The people who complained should assume it’s a mistake, and let it go once the content is removed. It’s difficult for them to do that if you argue that their perspective isn’t valid because that content isn’t offensive in all parts of the world.

I live in eastern areas in the world and am generally less mentally connected to historical events that happened on the western side, and I picked that poem just because it's the first thing that came up into my mind.

No problem, we understand that. That's why we're happy to educate you about the appropriateness (or rather lack thereof) of this poem in this context. The fact that Monica is Jewish might make one think the poem is a good fit, but it's rather Godwin's Law at work. The comments under your initial answer might have been harsh, which no doubt is caused by the high tension at the moment. But we realize it's an honest mistake and the discussion in the past weeks have made clear you won't get punished for those.

However, (essentially) resposting an answer deleted by a moderator or Community Manager is not an honest mistake and could easily lead you into trouble.

I later found it reasonable that that specific group of people were more allergic to such materials and topics, and started this confusion.

It's not a question of being allergic, it's a question of being reminded of one of the worst atrocities which happened in the history of humankind.

I'm having a strong doubt to this very case because IMO it's almost into the field of censorship.

Again, it's not a question of censorship, it's a question of decency. Just like I'm not going to deliberately start about topics like Taiwan or the Chino-Japanese wars (hmmm ... maybe I did now), especially not in situations which are personally about you or another user from China.

It's a general problem. Current SE politics is that "we have to focus on the most touchy members".

So, instead of thinking about helping people (what SE sites were supposed to be), we are now in the 1st place think "how to not hurt someone".

Something was obviously went wrong...

As Script47 already said:

someone somewhere will find something offensive in what you write if they really want to

This sounds cynical. And the even more cynical answer to your question is: This mainly depends on how largely the majority agrees on whether the offense is justified. There are obvious examples of topics that are mine fields. These are topics where groups of people have opposing opinions, and are engaged in a trench war.

^{(And mine fields and trench wars are nasty, by the way - people could certainly be offended by the statement above, and accuse me of "trivializing" things here...)}

But this is not so much the case for everything that is related to Nazis: The consensus by the majority is that "Nazi" is basically synonymous for "evil person", and the Holocaust was the worst thing that ever happened in history. So anything that has any connection to this topic will be considered as being offensive by some people, and the majority will accept that it is considered to be offensive.

^{(A side note: Some people really go the extra mile for finding such connections. An example that I had given in the comments of your deleted answer is that of suum cuique - a juridical concept that has been around for more than 2000 years - and which is often translated to "Jedem das seine" in German, roughly meaning "to each his own". Now, companies have been lambasted for using the innocent statement "Jedem das seine" as some sort of slogan for their products, because the Nazis wrote it at the gates of concentration camps...)}

For people in Germany, the specific topic that caused your question is particularly difficult. I knew the poem before, but did not know its exact connection to the Nazi regime. For a German politician, using this poem like you did (to refer to a different organization or party) would be perceived as comparing that organization or party to the Nazis (i.e. exactly what happened here), and that would likely be career-ending.

However, (for me) it is clear that you did not equate (or even compare) SE to the Nazis, and did not intend to trivialize the Holocaust or whatever. You used this poem because its contents is about the problems that arise from people not speaking out and taking their stance. The fact that the poem is related to Nazis is tangential at this point. An analogy would be to say that "Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin had a toothbrush moustache". This is not comparing persons, but their moustaches.

So eventually, the answer is: You should take care to not post things of which you know that they are offensive. But often you simply cannot tell beforehand whether someone will "legitimately" be "offended" by some statement. You can say whatever you deem to be appropriate. If someone can profoundly argue that this is "not acceptable", and if enough users (or some mods) agree, it will be deleted or edited out.

(Giving a reason for deletion or editing should be the norm, though - otherwise, it could rightfully be perceived as some sort of "censorship of opposing opinions").

Okay, well, as it stands, you're not required to do anything (within certain bounds, you're not allowed to post in favor of fascism or something clearly bigoted).

But, in general, as per the Be Nice policy and basic human decency, you should be careful. Why compare a situation to something as horrible [can't think of an appropriate word] as the Holocaust? Why mention religion/politics/money unless you have to (like on a religion site or on politics)? Why share incendiary views you have, unless you have to? I'm not saying you're not allowed to share these things. I'm saying if it isn't really relevant, if you can say something less extreme, why would you go with the more incendiary thing, especially when there's no real point? Monica's dismissal is horrible, but comparing it to the Holocaust? That's a no from me.

And in general, talking about censorship and free speech is shifty grounds, because as I have said many times by this point, you enter into an implied social contract by participating. Your content, as someone noted in the comments, got flagged as R/A. That's not censorship, that's simply response to your own actions.

When I was a child, I had heard some other kids use a word to describe a stupid person. So at one point, I said to my mother that I thought someone else was being "seepy".

My mother told me that it was a bad thing to use a word describing a physical handicap as a slur. I already knew that, but I hadn't made the connection that the word I'd heard as "seepy" actually was "CP" - i.e. "person with CP, cerebral palsy".

The fact that I did not understand the connotations of the term I'd used didn't mean that using the term was OK. I got informed about it and haven't used it that way since. If I had kept complaining about being told off and wanted to keep using the term to mean what I wanted it to mean, I would have kept offending people around me. And I wouldn't have been a good person.

The fact that the OP didn't understand the connotations of the poem in the Western world doesn't negate those connotations. The fact that the intent was not to say "SE staff are nazis" doesn't change the fact that that's how it's been read by several people.

Not having the background to understand the connotations and context in which a word or poem will be heard or read happens to all of us at some point in life - for instance, English is my second language and though I believe I speak and write it quite well, I still occasionally stumble over an idiom or expression that I've failed to understand properly.

And removing a post that was made under those circumstances is not an indictment of the character or intent of the person who posted it. It simply says that the CM and the users who voted to remove/delete it did not think it was appopriate in this place at this time.

It seemed to me "in bad taste" or "inappropriate" rather than "offensive".

It was an example of Godwin's law in action.

The actual situation is sad and possibly vile already -- I think it's "wrong" to exaggerate it, although that (exaggeration, use of idiom, etc.) is a normal human or rhetorical tendency.

I live in eastern areas in the world and am generally less mentally connected to historical events that happened on the western side, and I picked that poem just because it's the first thing that came up into my mind.

That can happen.

I had this reaction on reading because I'm aware of this history and the poem's, i.e. what it's about.

I didn't assume you meant it in its original sense or to be offensive, I know it's used as a trope now.

Although the referred poem was associated with the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust for a long time, it has been applied to more recent events, notably to Donald Trump's actions.

Some sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/01/first-they-came-poem-history/514895/

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/first-they-came