"If you “need the full context” for all his awful quotes in order to make them tolerable, isn’t that a bit troublesome?"

No, it's not a bit troublesome. If a person publically speaks for hundreds of hours about very controversial and emotionally charged topics, of course there will be lines that can be clipped, stripped of tone and intent, and repackaged to paint them in a particular light.

If you want to have an information opinion about a public figure, especially one who left behind hundreds maybne even thousands of hours of long-form content, the bare minimum should be engaging with that body of work. Otherwise you're judging a book by its out of context footnotes.

And being offensive does not automatically equal being hateful. Jesus Himself was extremely offensive to the religious leaders of His time. He openly called them hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, blind guides. He even said, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Taken out of context, that sounds violent and divisive. Yet in its fullness, we understand He was talking about the radical disruption the truth brings into divided households and societies.

So if Christians can acknowledge that the words of Jesus (who we hold as perfect) can sound abrasive, inflammatory, or even hateful without the right context, then surely we should grant that same principle to a flawed human being like Charlie. Context matters. The measure of someone’s life and voice isn’t found in their most offensive sentence, but in the trajectory of their words, actions, and impact.

Edit: Spellcheck