Coming from voat I could do easily without comments asking for genocide or stating that the holocaust "has to happen for real this time", but I couldn't do without free discussion of controversial subjects, including race, inheritance and religion.
I've read the TOS and it appears to me that it leaves room for interpretation, I've seen similar rules used selectively by mods and admins to enforce their particular worldview.
Posting content of any kind that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group of people because of their belonging to a race, religion or nation is strictly prohibited.
I think inciting violence is very dry cut, but hate is an emotion and therefore subjective, intention can at times be reasonably assumed but it's not always obvious. Rules against "discrimination" are in my experience almost always enforced selectively.
For example if a user says that he's an atheist and would never date someone religious, would that be considered discrimination? What if a muslim says she'd never date a jew or other non-muslims and that every muslim should act this way (it's stating a discriminatory preference based on religion and suggesting that other people should have the same preferences, but at the same time having such preferences is arguably part of religious freedom.)? What if a fundamentalist christian does the same thing?
What if someone advocates gender and race quotas, which is quite literally discrimination based on gender and race? In my experience rules against discrimination are usually enforced based on how socially acceptable a particular form of discrimination is.
Is the neutral discussion of facts from sources that are generally considered to be neutral and that show differences among groups of people considered to be inciting discrimination? For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study?
I think that discussing these things is still far from inciting discrimination, but playing devils advocate one might argue that the knowledge of these facts makes people more biased and in turn increases discrimination within society, thus while not directly inciting discrimination it has the same effect of increasing discrimination.
I am not an admin, but I've been here long enough to know the policy.
All of your examples are acceptable. The rule is vague, the purpose is to give leeway, not take it away. If your intentions are not malicious or abusive, you will not have any problems.
But if it breaks laws, or is malicious or abusive, they may take action.
Open communication and free speech are prioritys, but community is priority one. Trying to drive off opposing views as sometimes happens on Voat, is frowned upon.
So I think you'll be happy.