It’s easy to condemn an insult. The hard part is to condemn it test with data and not to lose focus. The real question is: Does the reaction keep the insult at the center, or Is he creating another narrative?
I. Insult, Reaction, and Timestamp
The language Mine G. Kırıkkanat used in reference to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu goes beyond the bounds of acceptable debate, and for this reason, it is only natural that she should be condemned.
Mine Kırıkkanat (X post, [April 25, 2026]):
“Crypto straggler.”
The fact that this information is publicly known takes the discussion out of the realm of speculation and a concrete timeline It establishes this. Indeed, the reactions that followed can be observed with the same clarity.
In this context, Özgür Özel’s statement appears, at first glance, to be a clear condemnation.
Özgür Özel (X post):
“A so-called writer, whose insults against me I have patiently endured for years, has this time launched a brazen attack on Mr. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.”.
The legacy of our former Chairman is my top priority.
”In a word, I CONDEMN IT."
However, the following point made in the same text shifts the direction of the discussion:
“For years, I have patiently endured every kind of insult directed at me…”
This sentence goes beyond a simple condemnation broadening the scope of the discourse serves a purpose.
II. Factual Basis: How Well Does the Claim Hold Up?
Such a sweeping claim, however, continuity and intensity It makes sense when supported by examples.
However, an analysis of Mine G. Kırıkkanat’s opinion pieces paints a different picture:
- June 9, 2024 dated “We don’t want a new constitution—we want the rule of law!” In an article titled [...] published in Cumhuriyet, regarding Özgür Özel, “a political leader on the rise” the term is used; language positive–neutral remains within the framework of a political analysis. In the article:;
“The results of the March 31 local elections… turned the new party leader, Özgür Özel, into a political leader on the rise to power with his very first electoral move.”
the statement is included.
- May 5, 2024 dated “Fincancı, the expert on fabricated reports” In the article titled [...], published in Cumhuriyet, Özel’s name comes up in the context of a debate; however, here too insulting language that targets a person's character is not available. In the text, however;
“”A photo taken on May 1 showing CHP Chairman Özgür Özel and Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu alongside Şebnem Korur Fincancı sparked fierce criticism of the two political leaders." It is called.
These two examples alone do not establish a definitive conclusion; however, at least in the texts made public, directed at Özel there is no clear pattern of systematic discourse that is ongoing and directly insulting indicates.
Therefore “all kinds of insults over the years” when compared to the current data a generalization with an expanded scope gives the impression that...
III. Rhetorical Shift: Condemnation or Positioning?
The real issue here is not the existence of the condemnation, is how the condemnation was formulated.
When condemning an insult:
- shifting the focus away from the victim and onto the speaker’s own past,
- shifting the discussion to the premise that “I’ve been dealing with this for years too,”,
- and failing to support this with concrete examples,
a rhetorical shift creates.
This shift has two consequences:
- The true gravity of the injustice takes a back seat.
- A rebuke ceases to be a matter of principle, personal positioning tool becomes.
In political communication, such expressions are frequently a technique for establishing legitimacy is used as: The speaker positions themselves as the patient and targeted party. However, this technique, unless supported by verifiable examples, rather than a factual observation perception-building serves.
IV. Apology Statement: Acceptance or Mitigation?
On the other side of the debate, following the reactions to the statement made by Mine Kırıkkanat, “An apology along the lines of ”I didn’t know” is included.
Mine Kırıkkanat (X post – apology):
“I sincerely apologize to my Alevi friends. I was unaware of the historical context of the phrase ”Kılıç artığı.’ I used that phrase in reference to Kılıçdaroğlu’s surname. Please forgive my ignorance.”
This apology:
- error handling is important in terms of,
- however, the phrase used does not eliminate its historical and sociological baggage.
Furthermore, “I didn’t know” The defense does not completely eliminate liability; it merely the debate over intent opens the door. This, in turn, shifts the debate away from a principled basis, at the level of personal statements carries the risk of depreciation.
Conclusion: Condemnation Is Not Enough; Verification Is Necessary
It is necessary to condemn an insult. But that is not enough.
If a reprimand:
- if it is based on generalizations,
- unless it is supported by concrete data,
- and if it shifts the focus away from the victim,
What emerges then is not merely a reaction, but also a narrative construction.
The question is this:
Does the reaction to an insult truly focus on the insult itself—or is that insult merely a means of establishing a different political framework? Is it turning into an opportunity?
The picture that emerges in this context points to the construction of a narrative that goes beyond mere condemnation. It is clear that this reaction is not limited to condemning the insult; rather, it establishes a new political framework based on a narrative of victimhood that is not supported by concrete evidence.