Comedians have long walked the very narrow line between 'too offensive' and 'not offensive enough'. It's not a problem unique to our current circumstances, although many comedians (often less skilled comedians) and commentators have bemoaned contemporary culture as less tolerant of 'good' comedy.
The best comedians however are able to (must be able to) adapt to the shifting norms and standards of the cultures in which they ply their trade. Comics who rely on shock value alone; who infuse their jokes with little value other than offence, may well fall by the wayside. Skilled comics however tend to rise to the top in challenging social environments, by finding creative ways to tackle issues typically deemed taboo, especially when fumbled by less talented hands.
If you haven't already, check out the work of Bill Burr, Nicky Glaser, Mark Normand, Frankie Boyle, Ricky Gervais, Anthony Jeselnik, Gary Delaney and Jimmy Carr (apologies for the lack of female work. I'm going off the top of my head).
To be a comic and attribute one's failure to the 'oppressive standards of the time' might suggest a lack of willingness and/or ability to navigate these standards (and even ridicule them) by means of the craft.
There are, no doubt, some unfortunate casualties, such as those comics who like to work at the extremes; utilising offensive material not in order to offend, but demonstrate their performative bravery in making offence itself, funny. There is a humour to be found in the act/viewing of the comedian who, in the face of increasingly politically correct entertainment structures (and sometimes in the face of their own audience's expectations) treads ground designed to challenge the gag reflex (pun intended). One such casualty seems to have been Jerry Sadowitz. There is nothing stopping Jerry from adapting though, should he choose to do so. Whether he does likely depends on how deeply he feels such a bow to authority to be a betrayal of his style. We shall see.
In the absence of a definition of 'virtuous humour', I propose that skilled comedians represent one of any progressive society's most valuable assets. This has long been recognised. See court jester.
"Jester's privilege is the ability and right of a jester to talk and mock freely without being punished".
Perhaps this privilege is being eroded to an extent, but it seems likely that there were always certain standards a jester crossed in peril of punishment; that the privilege only extended so far, especially when mocking those in power. The Jester too, would have had to adapt to the differing humours of those who occupied the throne. So must they now adapt to our gradual realisations in regards to how cruel and damaging some forms of humour can be. Again, many of the best comics find virtue by venturing boldly into the taboo and using outrage to unify rather than polarise. It is an exceptionally difficult skill, and one we should treasure. It is far easier to cause upset for the sake of it, without plumbing any real social, emotional or psychological depth, although some might find virtue in the very act of standing up to any limitation on free speech, even when it transgresses into hate speech. If people are really interested in such performance, it will survive in some form. Some comedy clubs have emerged (seeComedy Unleashed as one example, and perhaps Joe Rogan's new club, Comedy Mothership as another), which seek to provide a home for edgier humour. This is a predictable consequence of what many see as an overly paternal state of affairs in the comedy world, but even in these clubs I suspect you will find comics who are finding ways to adapt to new expectations more than they stubbornly hold some 'sacred' 'inviolable' ground.
If 'virtuous humour', is that humour which engages us in meaningful ways; prompting us to examine those of our foibles we are typically too afraid to raise in polite conversation, or merely by making despondent people laugh, we are in good hands, and still - despite protestation to the contrary - in a very tolerant corner of the comedic world.