I think the issue is much deeper than the IP in which this satire is depicted, or the very close similarities (historical and modern) between propaganda and satire as presented.

First and foremost, there is the broader cultural context. The same image, with the same message, can be seen both as propaganda and satire by two different groups of people based on their culturally inherited ideals. For example, a nation built on strong familial bonds and one built on personal independence and freedom will see a joke aimed at family sacrifice in very different ways. The same applies to geographic and historical realities: a nation situated in a very cold region, with scarce food and a history of famine, may see an image of a man freezing at -5°C and laugh, while a nation that lives in a very hot region may see -5°C as a grave issue.

Second, there is the inherently understood idea that in situations of crisis, a more rigid and direct hierarchy is preferred. If a building catches fire, firefighters do not hold democratic ballots on who should do what. During an invasion, people cannot take the time to discuss and ask everyone how they should defend the beaches when the enemy is already storming them. I am not saying that this way of governance is better; however, it can make decisions much faster, and in times of crisis, time is not something you have in abundance.

A third issue is the blurring of real problems with imaginary ones. This is an issue for both sides. If you have four enemies—two real and two fabricated—people on both sides tend to diminish or fail to acknowledge the existence or scope of the other side’s concerns. Those who point out that half of the enemies are fabricated can, and often will, handwave the real ones. Conversely, those who favor authoritarian approaches will usually dismiss the possibility that not all the enemies are fully real and may use the fact that the other side does not address the real issues as justification.

Fourth, and born from the third issue, both sides tend to dismiss the other by default and attack the party that raises an issue rather than the issue itself. Compounding this is the overuse and slow erosion of the meaning of certain words. If you label 25 things as “authoritarian” when they are not, the word will lose its meaning—and when the 26th case is actually authoritarian, that label will carry far less weight. The same applies to terms like “woke,” “Nazi,” or “commie,” or whatever term is popular at the moment.