This is a dispute that will never find resolution. These guidelines from Nintendo would have, for instance, prohibited a game like Wolfenstein II from appearing on the N64.
I would like to point out that the second bullet point is more ore less identical to the Haye's Code, and was used (successfully) by German representatives to argue that late 1930s-early 1940s films depicting the holocaust denigrated the Nazis as a political group leading to them being censored and/or banned. Wolfenstein would also fail Nintendo's guidelines because it features political and/or ethnic stereotypes (ie, Germans as evil -- also, Set Roth being Jewish and being part of a Jewish mystical society behind all modern technology would probably fail the test because it could be interpreted as implying that Jews control the world or something. Then there's all the sex and swearing which would be a massive no-no.) You can laugh, but that is how the damn cookie crumbled. Drawing up guidelines is an ugly job that someone has to do on same basic level, but it is an insane rabbit hole. People glibly say things like, "All Valve has to do is ban games with unequivocal hate speech!" So... Mafia III? And then there's the other rabbit hole which is: Should Steam ban a game globally if it is illegal in one country? Few instance, if Australia persists in banning We Happy Few, should the game be removed everywhere? Why not? What set of rules -- what standards of illegality should Valve comply with as a company dealing with an international audience? Particularly when it comes to games being banned for the promotion of illegal or immoral behavior? (This is honestly an issue they have to face even with their "anything goes except illegal stuff" policy.)