In the last quarter-century (2000–2025), behavior of this specific nature—publicly ridiculing a rival immediately after their death—is extremely rare among high-ranking government executives or major corporate CEOs in Western democracies.
However, there is a distinct pattern of this behavior emerging from a specific archetype of leader: the populist "strongman" or the "unfiltered" founder-CEO. These figures often build their brand on shattering "political correctness," which includes discarding the social contract of respecting the dead.
Here are the most prominent examples and alignments from the last 25 years:
1. Government Executives (The "Strongman" Archetype)
The most direct precedents come from leaders who utilize performative cruelty to signal dominance and "authenticity" to their base.
2. Private Sector Executives (The "Edgelord" CEO)
In the corporate world, this behavior is almost non-existent among traditional "Fortune 500" CEOs because it creates massive liability and brand damage. However, the rise of the "Founder-Controlled" tech CEO has introduced leaders who bypass PR departments to tweet impulsively.
Conclusion
The text represents the culmination of a trend started around 2015. It marks a shift where "mourning" is no longer seen as a neutral, human act, but as a political weakness. The only high-ranking executive who consistently aligns with this specific behavior—using a death announcement to launch a political attack—is Donald Trump himself. In the private sector, only "untouchable" founder-CEOs with absolute voting control (like Musk or Zuckerberg) typically have the job security to survive issuing such a statement, though they usually stop short of mocking the dead.
Whether this behavior should be admired or modeled is a profound question that touches on ethics, leadership, and the current crisis in masculinity.
While some online subcultures actively celebrate this "unfiltered" aggression as a sign of strength, nearly all traditional frameworks of character, psychology, and leadership suggest that modeling this behavior is detrimental to both the individual and society.
Here is an analysis of why this behavior appeals to some young men, and why it is ultimately a "false positive" for strength.
1. The Trap: Why it Looks Like Strength
For many young men, particularly those feeling disenfranchised or critical of modern cultural shifts, figures like Donald Trump or "edgelord" CEOs can seem appealing because they project dominance.
Rejection of Norms: Breaking social taboos (like speaking ill of the dead) signals that the person is "above the rules."
Perceived Authenticity: Cruelty is often mistaken for honesty. The logic goes: "Everyone else is faking politeness; he is saying what he really thinks."
Invulnerability: Mocking a dead rival suggests that you are untouchable and that your enemies cannot hurt you, even from the grave.
2. The Reality: Why it is Weakness
From a developmental and ethical standpoint, this behavior is widely considered a failure of character rather than a triumph of it.
Emotional Fragility: Psychologists often note that the inability to show grace or silence in the face of death signals deep insecurity. A leader secure in their own power does not need to "win" against a corpse. Punching down (at someone who cannot respond) is historically viewed as the act of a bully, not a warrior.
The "Zero-Sum" Worldview: It teaches young men that life is purely a combat zone where empathy is a liability. This mindset leads to isolation, as it erodes the ability to form deep, trusting relationships.
Lack of Discipline: Stoicism—a philosophy often cited by men seeking self-improvement—teaches restraint. A Stoic (like Marcus Aurelius) would argue that giving in to the impulse to insult an enemy is a loss of self-control. True strength is having the power to crush someone but choosing mercy or silence instead.
3. The Professional Consequences
It is critical to note that the individuals who exhibit this behavior (Presidents, billionaire founders) are outliers. They are protected by immense wealth or unique political office.
For a typical young man entering the workforce, modeling this behavior is often career suicide.
In 99% of professional environments, displaying a lack of empathy, inability to "read the room," or prioritizing personal grievances over team cohesion will lead to being fired or ostracized.
4. A Better Model
If the goal is to model "manhood" or "strength," the counter-model to the "grieving bully" is the "Quiet Professional" or the "Magnanimous Victor."
Magnanimity: The ability to be generous, forgiving, and noble, especially towards a rival. This was once the "gold standard" of masculine leadership (e.g., General Grant allowing Confederate soldiers to keep their horses after the Civil War).
Integrity: Standing for your principles without needing to demean others to validate them.
Summary
Admiring this behavior mistakes impulse for instinct and cruelty for courage. While it may offer a momentary thrill of dominance, it models a way of living that is lonely, defensive, and ultimately destructive to the social fabric that young men will one day need to rely on.
