There are two concepts I want to go over: first, punching up/down, and second, the purpose of dark humor.
But I'll start backwards. Dark humor, as many of us know, is a tasteless umbrella of comedy that covers the worst aspects of the world on purpose. This might lead some to think that those who attempt dark humor are soulless or even representing part of their own character via the jokes. If a Democrat physician opened an abortion clinic called "Don't Kid Yourself" (not my joke), it is probably right to believe that the person is pro-abortion. That doesn't make the name any less funny though. In this case, it is possible to judge the person, because the intentions are clear, there will be abortions performed. It still qualifies as dark humor, but there is actual evidence of their true beliefs.
Counter that with a Chinese dissident who said the next Final Destination film should be about the Great Hall of People collapsing on all the delegates. He was arrested for spreading terrorist information because it's China and, as we all know, communists have no sense of humor. However, objectively, he did not call for the death of anyone. Referencing a movie in fact makes this doubly clear, since, I should remind some people, movies aren't real life. Movies rarely deal with the horrors of reality, and that's where dark humor plays its role, since China is a horror, and joking about it as such is how some people can stay sane.
A military man lost a finger instead of his life after a motorcycle accident. It's a scary thing. Yet when he was driving the humvee on site, his sergeant mentioned "I don't feel safe, this guy doesn't even have all ten fingers on the wheel". Does that mean the sergeant is able-ist? Does that mean he doesn't care about his soldier?
Further issues with dark humor come into play when there is no visible suffering in the joke teller. Anthony Jezelnik, who Voat's more sensitive have plastered as a pedo for jokes, also made this joke "Why did Eric Clapton's child die?...For inspiration" - Welp, I guess he also advocates for killing children if you need good material. The Ricky Gervais pedo thread was even stupider since he was talking about how he hates seeing children, and wanted to freak out the parents so that they'd stop showing pictures of their kids. George Carlin said, when being told you can't joke about rape, "Fuck you, I think it's hilarious". He must be a rapist. When he said "Fuck the children" he may have been talking about how parents overvalue what their children do, but on Voat these days, it was probably a secret code for what he actually advocates.
These kind of jokes are called "punching down". They don't make sense theoretically, because if you are in a better position, you have no need to insult, mock, or perhaps even defend yourself from someone lower than you. By this logic, all memes about immigrants and black people on this website are guilty of punching down. Naturally, this logic is retarded, since the implication is that you lose your right to speak if you have x amount of money or x amount of status.
CRTV just made a blatantly obvious satire video where they compiled Ocasio-Cortez interviews (IN DIFFERENT ROOMS) to make her look even dumber than she already does. The predictable impulse on the left was to call it fake news, and thank god Buzzfeed debunked it so no one was misinformed. In 5 seconds, it'll be called sexism and blah blah but she's also young and up-and-coming so it's punching down from a big internet business, "how disgusting".
The recent discoveries of child abuse jokes by the likes of Patton Oswald and James Gunn are, I think, slightly different in the sense that the jokes are amazingly unfunny, and yet frequent over the space of time. It is much more suspect in that case. However, my intention is to get a discussion going about the idea in general that making jokes about x equates to advocating or admission of some act. This kinda hyper-sensitive bullshit is why we make fun of feminists. No one would argue you must find child abuse jokes funny. However, the more important thing is that evidence for crime comes before intuition or thought-policing. If you have evidence Rainn Wilson did anything to a kid, fine, castrate him like the muslims did to their slaves. Until then, how many of you are interested in killing all suspects for the greater good? That sounds suspect in of itself.
TLDR: a baby seal walked into a club. Fuck you, read it.