The Work of Chatroom Politics

Where the work gets done, undone, and then done again

Taylor Swift is hard at work producing content units (OpenArt AI)

Can 335 people be wrong? Of course

Left-wing writer John Ganz¹ recently published a Substack post that, inter alia, examined the dynamics and evolution of right-wing chatrooms. In it, Ganz recounted his lived experience on the fringes of these circles, dating back to his earliest writings about the anti-Trump right.

To Ganz’s surprise, instead of uncovering the suspected infiltration of the “alt-right” into mainstream platforms, he developped a genuine sense of camaraderie with young right-wing enthusiasts who shared his dislike for Trump. As time progressed, however, the dynamics of their relationship started to shift. Ganz noted a trend where these individuals would repetitively echo certain memes or ideas from right-wing platforms, and eventually these ideas would transition from jokes to genuine beliefs.² He observed a recurring pattern where some halfway notable event would happen, and its interpretation would gradually alter as these right-wing talking points took hold:

Then they believed it. The other thing I saw is that they related to the extreme fringe as some kind of oracle of forbidden knowledge. They were like these chtonic forces that had to be listened to for some reason. They would show me things and I was like, “These people are just obviously mentally disturbed shitposters,” but to them it contained some deep wisdom. And often, the more deranged, the better: it was closer to The Real for them.

The other thing was gradually how a narrative took hold. We’d observe some phenomenon together, have roughly the same thing to say about it, then gradually they’d get their right-wing talking points from somewhere and that was that. We all were chatting about January 6. They were all scared and angry about it. Shocked that this was happening. Then gradually it wasn’t a big deal. Or maybe even a set up. Any event that happened would get metabolized like that.

This trajectory led to heated and bitter arguments, revealing a more extreme side of the people involved. Ganz realized that these posters were often engaged in a politics of personal destruction that rivaled "cancel culture”:

I saw some other ugly things, too, about the way they practiced internecine politics. They had a lot of other people on the right they intensely hated: they were stupid, dowdy, or they were professionally more advanced than them and didn’t deserve it. And they sniped at them endlessly in the DMs. I really regret to say this, but I would attack the people they didn’t like, on their behalf, acting as their catspaw. What was the harm? I was a left-winger, I was attacking right-wingers. That’s what I was supposed to be doing, right? Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Well, not always. Sometimes we allow ourselves to be used.

As I can see now, with the contents of these right-wing DMs leaking and these people trying to fuck each other over, this is how they do things. Functioning like little secret police bureaus, they like to gather files on people they want to get. And they convince themselves of the other people’s total depravity: They convince themselves these people deserve it, that they have it coming. They do this kinda stuff to their friends, the people they socialize with, with people who ostensibly share their values and politics. Through acts of subtle and overt bullying, they practice a politics of personal destruction on their internal enemies that’s every bit as brutal as “cancel culture” and often for far pettier reasons. Does this happen on the Left? Yeah, sure, I’ve seen and, yes, even participated in some nasty feuds, but I’ve never seen anything quite so cold-blooded. I’ve certainly got some difficult friends, but I’m very glad I’m not part of that crowd. But, as my parents like to say, “That’s politics, my dear.”

That’s all well and good, I suppose. “Take it personal and make it personal” is how you build your brand on social media, regardless of what you’re peddling — and controversies create clout and possibly even cash for the parties involved. The shared human need for validation, power, and control manifests in all parts of this world wide web of lies. Everybody wants to play the role of a big shot in billionaire-owned social media sandboxes, hoping to win some likes, loves, clout, and maybe even lunch money for their posting efforts. In other words, it's a misconception that, per Ganz, only the "online right" harbored ruthless chatroom dynamics. The "online left" spaces are equally aggressive, rife with cancellations and exiles.³