Abstract Affective polarization, characterized by entrenched partisan hostility, is increasingly threatening democratic norms by fostering exclusionary and uncivil discourse, particularly in digital spaces. This study investigates how individuals respond to fact checks that contradict their political beliefs in the polarized and authoritarian context of Turkey. Focusing on 1,543 user comments responding to 23 fact checks published by Teyit.org during the 2023 Turkish presidential elections, this analysis dissects the emotional tone, targets, and rhetorical strategies employed in online political discourse. A key contribution of the study is distinguishing between uncivil comments, profane or insulting remarks primarily targeting political elites, and intolerant discourse, which directs hostility toward marginalized groups, posing a greater risk to democratic pluralism. Findings show that partisans, ignoring factual content, reframe fact checkers as biased actors and use tactics such as whataboutism, sarcasm, and source discrediting to reject inconvenient truths. The results also highlight how online polarization during elections sustains elite-focused antagonisms and facilitates social exclusion and the scapegoating of minorities. These dynamics illustrate that, though designed to promote truth, fact-checking efforts can become entangled in broader struggles over identity, trust, and legitimacy in deeply divided societies.
Mehmet Fatih Çömlekçi (Thu,) studied this question.