I'll provide the counterpoint and say satire and speech are not dangerous.

Nobody is directly hurt by it. It can be involved in a causal chain that leads to harm, but so can everything.

If you contend that speech is dangerous because it can lead to harm, then language itself is dangerous because it can lead to speech. For that matter air is dangerous, because it facilitates language.

Now that no one is talking we can save the environment for reals this time!

Exactly. No different than "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".

If anyone is interested in what that means, it appears to be China's version of "resisting arrest" and "assaulting an officer": a spurious, ill-defined charge with which the inconvenient could be bludgeoned.

What the parent comment means by referencing this phenomenon, which already has an Occidental analogue, is still unclear to me.

It's basically China's version of "free speech is dangerous". Whenever someone starts saying things the CCP doesn't like, they are "fomenting dissent".

What people don't get is if you want to start censoring "dangerous speech" then you'd better have a perfect definition of what dangerous speech is. But there isn't one.

So what ends up happening is you ban speech with good reason, set a precedent, then your political opponent takes power and starts banning speech as well.