One man's meat is another man's poison
Our Stack is unique. Stack Exchange was developed to concisely answer factual questions — but that's not us. As I understand it, there was quite a discussion when Worldbuilding.SE was proposed because people realized that our sometimes non-concise and non-factual leanings would lead to difficulties.
And one of those difficulties is that what one person considers useful information another may think obscene.
In another life I was a micropublisher. One of the books we were editing for publication was a children's picture book about life among the ancient Israelites. We had random readers review the product before publication (we did this for all our books). All returned strong, positive reviews — except one. A lady who objected to using the word "sacrifice" or referring to the ancient Jewish tradition of the daily sacrifice in a children's book. She invited us instead to use the phrase, "the heavenly gift."
A great many people might believe that the woman was overly sensitive about the issue. Perhaps she was, but we took her review seriously and further analyzed whether or not the intended audience (children ages 1-6) would be harmed by our presentation. We did not accept her recommendation, but did make some modifications and moved on.
I had not seen the question nor the answer before reading this Meta question. When I clicked on your link and read Renan's answer I had to re-read it, then read the question, then read Renan's answer again, because I was expecting to read a graphic description of abuse, not an anecdotal reference to abuse.
Please remember, I've been a micropublisher. I've read tens of thousands of manuscripts, including manuscripts that actually do have graphic (and detailed) descriptions (page after page) of animal and human torture — and that despite a submission rule that clearly stated it wasn't the kind of book we were interested in. Once (only once) we found a book that would have been wonderful to publish if only all the violence were removed. When we approached the author with our request, his response was, "there's no way for the reader to understand the depth of my antagonist's evil if the violence is removed."
Well, yes... and no... but it's his book so we parted company.
How does this affect Worldbuilding.SE?
We generally adhere to the U.S. desire for free speech. This means that, all other things being equal, we do not censor what people write here.
We do follow (and are required to do so), SE's Code of Conduct and Expected Behavior. Normally, this means don't be mean and don't be (too) vulgar. But we have had questions and answers that the community strongly downvoted as inappropriate that were subsequently deleted.
And therein lies what's important. We are not a small group of people imposing morality on a large group of people. We are a community that talks through our differences. The downside to this is that some policies that reflect the desires of the majority will go against the wishes of the minority.
I know, I've tried to change the culture of this site on a number of issues: sometimes I succeeded, sometimes I didn't. And that's actually a good thing because, despite a fervent self-delusion that I'm right about everything, I'm not.
I believe Renan acted in good faith to use a real-world example to justify an answer. He was brief, so brief that one could legitimately flag the answer as "low quality." To my knowledge, it has not been so flagged and I agree that it should not because in this case the brevity is (to me) an obvious effort to avoid gratuitous excess. Indeed, I felt that his answer, while making a valid point, also included the compassion and concern over the issue reflecting an equally (to me) obvious understanding that his answer met a writer's need for background information and nothing more.
I'm also grateful for the opportunity this Meta question gives to evaluate specific examples of what we believe is morally and ethically responsible on this site. Users have joked in the past (and with good reason) that most of us are probably on the U.S. Homeland Security Watch List because of some of the questions about weapons of mass destruction, public disobedience, etc. and the answers to those questions. Balancing the right and privilege to speak freely with necessity and good judgment is something we should (and I believe do) take very seriously. When a question like this Meta post arises, it adds to the body of analysis that we use to draw a responsible line.
Regrettably, no drawn line will accommodate all people. And with that I close, knowing that my response won't make the OP content.