By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a period of public concern over Senator Mitch McConnell’s health, news emerged of the passing of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham, who represented South Carolina since 2003, reportedly died from a probable aortic tear. Social media platforms quickly became a venue for both jokes concerning McConnell’s well-being and the circulation of memes and humorous commentary regarding Senator Graham’s personal life and career.
Read the original article here
The recent passing of Lindsey Graham has, perhaps unsurprisingly, ignited a significant outpouring of online commentary, much of which has manifested as a torrent of rather brutal jokes. It’s a phenomenon that, while stark, highlights a particular sentiment simmering within certain corners of the internet: a perceived lack of obligation to offer somber respect to individuals whose public lives were marked by actions and stances deemed harmful or morally questionable. The prevailing sentiment seems to be that if one spends a lifetime making choices that negatively impact others, then the expectation of a dignified farewell, at least in the digital sphere, simply evaporates.
This wave of dark humor appears to stem from a collective feeling that certain public figures, by their own actions, forfeit the customary mantle of respect afforded to the deceased. The argument is often framed around a principle: if you don’t want to be subjected to online ridicule after your death, then don’t behave in a way during your life that invites it. This isn’t about a desire for revenge, but rather a perceived consequence for a lack of honor, scruples, or integrity. The jokes, in this light, are seen not as gratuitous cruelty, but as a reflection of the public’s judgment on a life lived.
The notion that “don’t speak ill of the dead” only becomes a popular refrain when the departed has a history of causing distress is a recurring theme. For those who feel their lives have been made worse by the actions of public figures, the idea of mourning or treating such individuals with unearned reverence feels disingenuous, even absurd. The online mockery is viewed by some as a form of reckoning, a digital manifestation of the public’s disapproval that was present, perhaps less overtly, during their lifetime.
Many comments point to a perceived hypocrisy in the outcry against jokes made about a deceased public figure. They question why certain individuals, particularly those who have spent years engaging in vitriolic rhetoric or making decisions that have harmed millions, should be exempt from criticism or even jest after their passing. The expectation is that if a person’s life was characterized by negativity, their legacy, and thus the commentary surrounding their death, should reflect that reality.
A particularly sharp observation is that a politician’s life, if lived in a way that inspires public scorn, can make their death a source of dark amusement. The jokes, rather than being fabricated out of whole cloth, are seen as a natural extension of the public’s perception of the individual. The passing of someone perceived as an “oligarch oppressing” the masses, for instance, is seen by some as an opportunity for a much-needed moment of levity, a chance to express dissent through humor.
The underlying principle that seems to drive much of this online commentary is quite straightforward: actions have consequences, even in death. If an individual was perceived as being an “absolute piece of a shit” throughout their life, then there’s little expectation that they will be treated with respect in its aftermath. The internet, in this context, is not seen as being overly cruel, but rather as mirroring the actual harm that the individual may have inflicted during their life. The jokes are, in essence, viewed as a form of earned ridicule.
Furthermore, the idea that death should erase past transgressions is challenged. The argument is that dying does not retroactively change what a person did in life. If someone was a public figure who consistently attacked vulnerable groups or enabled what many considered to be corrupt leadership, then the online world sees little reason to suddenly adopt a charitable view upon their demise. The jokes are seen as a continuation of the critique, an expression of continued disapproval.
The concept of a “spine” or integrity, or the lack thereof, also emerges as a frequent target. Jokes about a public figure’s perceived moral flexibility or lack of conviction are not new, and it’s argued that their death simply provides a new context for these criticisms. The absence of any possibility for redemption after death, in the eyes of some, can even exacerbate the severity of these online barbs.
The comparison to universally beloved figures like Mr. Rogers, who are remembered with widespread fondness and respect after their deaths, is often invoked. The contrast highlights the perception that if one lives a life that elicits widespread admiration, that respect will likely extend beyond their passing. Conversely, lives lived in a manner that attracts controversy and criticism are expected to be met with a different, less reverent, response from the public.
Ultimately, the surge of brutal online jokes following Lindsey Graham’s death appears to be a complex reaction rooted in a perception of earned consequence. It reflects a sentiment that public figures who engage in divisive or harmful actions should not expect a pass on public judgment simply because they have died. The internet, in its unfiltered and often blunt way, seems to be providing a platform for these critiques, allowing for a dark, and for some, cathartic, expression of disapproval.