The Controversial Jezebel Article and the Tragic Shooting of Charlie Kirk
In a shocking turn of events that has stunned the political world, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a student question-and-answer session at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. This tragedy occurred just days after the progressive U.S.-based website Jezebel published an article titled “We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk.” The timing and nature of this article, which was intended as satirical commentary, has ignited controversy amid widespread condemnation of the shooting from political figures across the spectrum. Former President Donald Trump mourned Kirk as “Great, and even Legendary,” while former President Barack Obama denounced the “despicable violence” that has “no place in our democracy.” The intersection of online content, political polarization, and real-world violence raises profound questions about the boundaries of political discourse in America.
The Jezebel article, published on September 8, was framed as a humorous exploration of internet culture, contrasting Kirk’s rise to prominence through online platforms with the quirky availability of services like “curses” on e-commerce sites. The writer explicitly stated they did not wish physical harm on Kirk, instead imagining minor inconveniences: “I want him to wake up every morning with an inexplicable zit. I want his podcast microphone to malfunction every time he hits record. I want his blue blazers to suddenly all be one size too small.” Despite this qualification, the article culminated with the purchase of a “MAKE EVERYONE HATE HIM” spell and concluded with what now reads as an ominous note: “So, did my Etsy curses work? Time will tell. The forces move in mysterious ways.” Following Kirk’s shooting, Jezebel added an editor’s note condemning the violence “in the strongest possible terms” and clarifying that they “do not endorse, encourage, or excuse political violence of any kind.”
Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, had built a substantial following through his conservative activism and commentary. His presence on social media and at campus events made him a polarizing figure in American politics—deeply admired by conservatives while often criticized by progressives. His work focused particularly on engaging young Americans with conservative ideas, which Trump acknowledged in his tribute, stating “No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.” Kirk’s death leaves a significant void in conservative activism and raises concerns about the safety of political figures engaged in campus outreach and public discourse, particularly in an era of heightened polarization.
The investigation into Kirk’s shooting continues, with authorities releasing a “subject” from custody on Wednesday night. While no direct connection has been established between the Jezebel article and the shooting, the proximity of the two events has generated intense discussion about the potential consequences of rhetoric that, even in jest, invokes supernatural harm against political opponents. The article’s framing—portraying the targeting of Republicans as a common practice among online witches—raises questions about the normalization of wishing misfortune on political adversaries, even when couched in seemingly harmless terms. The author’s assertion that ruining Kirk’s day “with the collective feminist power of the Etsy coven would be my life’s greatest joy” exemplifies the kind of hyperbolic language that permeates much of today’s political discourse.
The reaction to both the article and the shooting illuminates the deep divides in American political culture. While leaders from both parties have unequivocally condemned the violence, the incident has nonetheless been absorbed into existing narratives about political extremism, media responsibility, and the limits of satire. For supporters of Kirk, the Jezebel piece represents a troubling normalization of antipathy toward conservative figures; for defenders of the publication, the article was clearly satirical and its proximity to the shooting merely an unfortunate coincidence. These divergent interpretations reflect broader disagreements about the relationship between words and actions in the political sphere, and the extent to which provocative content contributes to a climate where violence becomes more likely.
As the nation grapples with yet another incident of political violence, the tragedy of Charlie Kirk’s death transcends partisan boundaries. The loss is felt most acutely by his wife Erika and their two young children, a human dimension acknowledged in statements from both Trump and Obama. Beyond the immediate grief, however, lies a challenge for American society: how to maintain robust political debate while drawing clear lines against rhetoric that, intentionally or not, might contribute to an atmosphere where violence seems justified. The Jezebel article—regardless of its intentions—and its proximity to Kirk’s shooting offers a sobering reminder of the real-world consequences that can follow when political opponents are dehumanized or targeted, even in ways meant to be humorous. As investigations continue and the nation mourns, Americans across the political spectrum are left to consider how we might engage our deepest disagreements without losing sight of our shared humanity.
