The point being that it is only there if you draw the line to include things that are demonstrably NOT satire. Which was the point. There is plenty like that and worse being said in earnest.

No, satire is legitimately often subtle, and this person admitted they were a troll. You keep saying that there are “plenty like that” and then admitting that absolutely no examples of people with real public platforms would ever say, in those exact terms, that exact thing. This was, keep in mind, trolling. As satire goes, it’s just supposed to set you off, and it did.

No, Poe’s law exist because in reality people can’t agree on what is actually real in the first place, so what to one is gross exageration is “pretty common reality” for another. It’s not because “satire is supposed to be subtle and everyone should be able to still get it”.

Yes! You can’t agree with me that this isn’t real yet you admit that no such examples exist in the wild. This isn’t real!

If you think CONTENT wise his post was exaggerated to any meaningful degree, than you have to discard WAY to much actually in earnest promoted ideas as satire.

Content-wise, it was exaggerated to “say the quiet part out loud” in a way that literally no earnest gun supporter would, particularly in public. That’s why you can’t find anyone precisely saying it. Mass shootings are tragedies that get “thoughts and prayers” that are caused by “mental illness” or other talking points in these people’s minds and newscasts, but no one ever, ever actually says that the victims were culled and strong survived. Not. In. Those. Words. That is satirical trolling. The distinction is real. They do not sound like that. They stated the implication that you cite (which may legitimately exist in some rhetoric, as you’ve said) explicitly.

Good day. I am logging out. You’re clearly beyond reach.