We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. It's not context-dependent, here. The very nature of this specific type of comedy is that it
is ambiguous.
It's similar to someone saying that they don't like stories with unreliable narrators because they don't know what "really happened." That's fine as a preference, but that preference precludes the entirety of that form. *
Now I will go back to the fundamental point- the best satire, the best irony, the best sarcasm ... it relies on that tension. It doesn't mean you can't critique it for other reasons- bad comedy can be bad for all sorts of reasons. But it does mean that the whole, "Some person didn't get the joke, so it's a bad joke," misses the point entirely when it comes to those specific forms. And again, it's not about knowing your audience. The point is that portion of the audience won't get it (and sometimes ... that is the point).
Or just look at the disparate reactions to Nathan Fiedler's various projects.
*And this idea of audience reaction should never be used when it comes to art. Look at this-
Roman Opalka, painter of infinity, died on August 6th, aged 79
webcache.googleusercontent.com
Some things
need to come out. Do you think Opalka stayed up at night worrying if people "got it?" Life is weird, and people do things for all sorts of reasons- good, bad, or none at all. Communication is partly about making sure your audience understands your message, but we also forget the other important part; expressing yourself. In the end, the idea that some might not understand what you are communicating is not something that people will worry about. Have I placed acrostics in some posts? Maybe. Was that for you benefit or my own amusement? Hard to say ... don't you think?