A couple of flags have been raised on this answer that suggests that the OP's example title is not appropriate. I have edited the title which I think conveys the same information, but in a more appropriate way. The OP has rolled my revision back.
Which way do we want the answer?
I think the original title overestimates the universality of the author's sense of humour, and is in a certain technical sense gratuitous. If the same point can be made with a title that does not risk either causing offence or derailing, then why go for a title that does have such risks, unless one is desperate to burnish one's Lenny Bruce credentials?
As with @YemonChoi, I found the title to be entirely unnecessary, and a distraction from the content of the answer itself. While I'm all for humorous example titles, it's trivial to make one not involving an inflammatory topic.
When it comes down to it, I don't think the fake title added anything, did feel like it was baiting a bit, and I was entirely comfortable with its removal. The further edits by the OP don't do much to make me think I'm wrong.
Please read the question Who has the final authority in an edit war? OP or a moderator? on Meta Stack Exchange
and one of the answer says
What is a moderator? Someone who is trusted to know the site rules and enforce them. Either elected by the site users themselves, or by Stack Exchange staff (or SE staff member on their own), a moderator has the final say in everything, and got tools to enforce their decisions
