Contribution short abstract:

The case of Süleyman Soylu indicates how satire and memes critique politicians, blurring parody and sincerity. Humor becomes an epistemic tool, revealing absurdities and creating solidarity and exclusion. "TikTokification" and satirical responses to Soylu show performative power and challenge norms.

Contribution long abstract:

Süleyman Soylu served as Türkiye’s Minister of Interior from 2016 to 2023 and became infamous for his authoritarian rhetoric, aggressive policing policies, and hyper-masculine public persona. His speeches were often highly emotional, melodramatic, and filled with exaggerated nationalist rhetoric, making him a prime target for internet satire. In 2021-2022, TikTok users started re-editing Soylu’s speeches to make him seem like a TikTok influencer rather than a politician. Dramatic clips of Soylu walking in slow motion, staring at the camera, or angrily pointing fingers were edited with romantic music, filter effects, and exaggerated captions like "Adamın Dibi" (The Ultimate Man). These ironic videos blurred the line between admiration and mockery, creating an ambiguous space where some right-wing supporters embraced the aesthetic. The "TikTokification" of Soylu, where he was transformed into a figure of online satire through memes and parodies, exemplifies the blurring of lines between parody and sincerity. Is Soylu a tough, nationalist leader or a TikTok cringe character? The emergence of the AI-powered “Soylu Speech Generator” further demonstrates how metapolitical memes can be used to critique political rhetoric. Examples included statements like “We will never let this country be divided! But first, drop a like!" Comedic journalism, such as the “Güldür Güldür” sketch satirizing Soylu's nationalist persona, underscores the role of humor in deconstructing power and revealing political absurdities. The ambiguity mirrors global cases where authoritarian figures become meme-fied. Overall, the Soylu case serves as a compelling illustration of how humor functions as an epistemic tool, indicating how contemporary political humor operates in ambiguous, self-referential loops—one moment, it's satire, the next it's a sincere nationalist aesthetic. It reveals the fragility of political authenticity, the performativity of power, and the ways humor can both resist and reinforce dominant narratives.