Did you mean "Chaos Confetti"?
Yup, can't get any more shitposty than this.
Oh, I thought they all get walked over the plank when they get to the R.
(it's a joke about piracy)
Inside the EU, they are. And when hosting is done inside the EU as well, enforcement can theoretically go as far as shutting a platform down for not complying with law enforcement, even when it is technically just 1 user that broke the law. This is especially a problem for small platforms. The big 4 usually just fight it out in court and settle a decade later with paying a 6 figure fine (peanuts to them)
(I enjoyed this, but now is the last statement from me, because me needing to spend my attention on other things)
User intention can rarely be discerned, not at all reliable or even viable in a public free4all. So, only phrasing and context from previous comments can be considered. Hyperbole (sarcasm, irony and other rhetorical devices) can and will always be taken at face value by someone. They will also be brought in as excuses for breaking rules. Sometimes a mod might be patient enough to engage a person and asking for clarification, but usually it is not worth it and disciplinary action must be taken or some future troll will actually be even correct when complaining about inconsistent moderation.
No problem, it's nice to have a level-headed exchange amidst an ongoing tornado of sewage :)
So, I can try to empathize with either side (mods and users) for each of the two quotes, and there might be scenarios where one is completely right and one is wrong. But as an outsider to the kind of debates where these quotes are commonly used, I simply don't have the cultural understanding to help much with answering your question. Sorry.
Drawing the arch back to my initial statement: There are several levels of escalation present between utilising famous people quotes to make a general point and trying to dodge around community rules by veiling direct threats to a specified (inferred from context) group. I am of the opinion that the guillotine-comment I replied to is definitely stepping over the line and only remains standing, because right now additional enforcement of rules is (probably) not going to improve the weather situation mentioned above.
Serious reply: helpfulness of coping strategies is very much subjective.
If the weather is as hot as it is today, I would actually enjoy that. 😄
I had to look up what that even is, because I haven't encountered that one before. (me not being US-American)
I cannot make a call on a reference to a quote brought forth on an unspecified subject without context.
In regards to JFK - yes that would count as advocating violence in a very generalised sense. But without context, again, I am not able to make a call, whether a ban on someone making the quote is justified or not. In general, moderation policy also falls under freedom of expression. Consequently, freedom of speech is not a claimable right against non-governmental agents. It's a thing that a lot of people seem to selectively overlook when advocating for what would actually be better described as "Anarchy of speech".
Is that an “implied” death threat?
It's not. Where are you going with this argument?
Where I moderate, even implied death threats are a zero-warnings bannable offense.
Ah. That's a layer of the joke I didn't know before.