Yeah it depends on the violence. Torture is out for me. And there’s been a lot of TV shows based around the exploitation of young women, usually chained to a bed in a basement, skimpily clad, with a stocking in their mouth. A wholly unimaginative variant on this to have children kidnapped, or killed. I skip all that shite.
In movies, too much gore or torture and I’m hitting the silent button. But IMDb is usually a pal and sets me wise to the worst of it. Generally though I like westerns and gangster films, and they can be quite violent. I like Tarantino films in general, and his violence is quite cartoonish so I don’t mind that too much..
I acknowledge the fact that violence exists in society, and I love film as an art form, so I understand that it will go there sometimes, and often make us uncomfortable. Realistic violence with real-world reverberations is generally the most disturbing to me, even when it isn't the most explicit, because it really looks at the worst of human nature. But I'm generally willing to endure that, when it is in the service of art and a higher purpose. (Though I do sometimes look away and plug my ears.) We all draw our own lines. I remember reading a review of Gaspar Noé's "Irreversible," which opens with a 15 minute rape scene. While the film was very well reviewed, one, IMO, very responsible reviewer did warn, "
you can't un-see that scene, and you should decide for yourselves about seeing the film." I decided against.
"Broadchurch" (yes, TV show, but indulge the spill-over) did have as its first season a story of a child murder, my sister-in-law's reason for skipping it. I thought it was intelligently done and I admired the show. (The violence was never on-screen, it was the subject of the story line, which was disturbing enough, but led to many interesting explorations.)
As to the other kind of violence, the more "cartoonish," I agree it's sort of different conversation. There is the middle-ground, which Tarantino occupies...really great filmmaking, often with rather a lot of blood and gore, in the Grand Guignol vein, which often makes me laugh, and it's intended to. High-brow homages to low-brow genres. And he's not the only one. I usually enjoy this type.
And I'm not above mindless fun with a high-body count. If I'm being serious and school-marmy, I will say that there is a down-side to cartoonish violence to no especially good point, where lots of anonymous people die, as in a video game, and as if violence has no consequences. That said, I'm not anti-fun, and I will see and enjoy movies like that, particularly if they are well-made and have smart scripts. ("Deadpool" comes to mind.) However, there are a lot of those films that are not made for me, which I recognize, and can happily skip.
Then there is the lower-rung, which is the horror/slasher genre, and that ilk. I have no interest, and you can't make me. It was reaching a nadir of late, a few years back, (the "Saw" films and such,) but there is some very good psychological horror making a resurgence, and that is for another day. I do like a good scare.
Sorry to go on, but I do think the topic of violence in films is very interesting. I once worked on a film about gun trafficking in NYC. (I say this on a day of gun violence in NYC, sadly.) It was about how guns come illegally into NYC, and the consequences. It comes to a head when a kid uses a gun in a dumb robbery in a bodega, and a child gets shot. The day we filmed it was a solemn day, even though the space was too small for most of us to be on set. The next evening, when we went to the screening of the dailies, which used to be on film and we watched in a screening room at the lab, we watched all of the takes, much of the mother's grief in slow-motion, with no cuts. When the lights came up, a lot of even the toughest guys on my crew were wiping away tears. This, IMO, is responsible use of violence in film. We were there to know it was all fake, and still it moved us.