Writ large, the OPs experience that they needed to share with is all is quite a good illustration of the dangers of trying to be clever when it comes to what makes people laugh.
Jimmy Carr is probably the best exponent of this fascinating glimpse into human psychology. Many many years ago, in a uncharacteristically grown up interview on Jonathan Ross, he was challenged over his rather raw humour. He then proceeded to eloquently explain a deep study of humour (much like Paul Daniels was scholar on illusionism) and a fascination with humours ability to bypass all our social barriers and penetrate before our conscious self has a chance to intervene.
He then told a very "off" joke (that I can't recall). As predicted there was a laugh from the audience which was followed within less than a second of a "ooooooooo" as they realised it was a "questionable" joke.
He then explained that his idea of performance is to dance the line between where it's "funny" to the soul but "not funny" to the mind.
So when you start opining about humour and taste you are very much in danger of having to admit that you "get" the joke - but don't like it. Or equally damning - you simply don't "get" the joke. And these two case studies are not something that just happened (checks notes) 2nd March 2026. They are as old as the hills. And frankly, if a joke has to be explained to you, then you are the last person to be pronouncing judgement. And if you get a joke, but don't like it, then just remember that your colleagues are required to get your perfume whether they like it or not.
I wonder if the OPs employer is the sort that witters on about wanting employees to bring their whole selves - including sense of humour - to work ?
I am sure there is a Reddit rule somewhere that says when a discussion on humour has to reference Jimmy Carr, it's game over. 😂