Public debate on Reddit: I'm better than you

I am not an avid social network user. These days, I mostly use Reddit and (occasionally) LinkedIn.

I am on Reddit for around a decade, watching subs on various topics rise and fall, social debate evolve, public opinions change. With time, it becomes progressively more difficult to find subs where interesting content creates a truly engaging public discussion.

In fact, most of the discussion in popular subs devolves to everyone repeating one thought - and that one thought only:

How does this work? It requires three steps that many debate participants now seem to understand intuitively, the three unwritten laws:

1. Define your enemy
2. Provide proof you’re better than them
3. Disguise it as a constructive contribution

Step 1. Your enemy #

The “I’m better than you” discourse works best if you separate the world into two categories - “good” (it’s the one where you belong) and “bad” (this is the one where your enemy belongs).

If you want to do this part right, you have to adhere to some laws of defining your enemy:

• Your enemy must have a name. Preferably short and memorable.
• Your enemy must never have any valid point. They are evil, stupid, weak, incapable of meaningful action. Tap into the reader’s desire for a clean split - heroes here, villains there.
• Don’t define yourself. Rookie mistake - if your enemy is, let’s say, a religious person, you don’t then name your friend “an atheist”. Instead, you are just a normal sane person, no need for a special name.

Roughly speaking, every community develops a convenient villain:

and so on.

Step 2. Proof you’re better #

To be more precise, provide proof that your tribe is better than your enemy’s tribe.

To do this, there’s an escalating ladder of proofs that you can use. Here are the three most popular.

Proof through access to better resources #

If your tribe has access to better resources than the other tribe, it counts as a proof that you are better. The examples are many:

• In my country there are more sorts of cheese in the supermarket than in your country (=> my country is better than yours => I’m better than you).
• People of my country / race score more on exams than your country / race (i.e. my tribe has access to better education => my tribe is better than yours => I’m better than you).

The obvious logic behind this is as follows: my tribe has better resources => my tribe has made better choices => the quality of choices is related to superiority of people making them => I am a part of my tribe => I am superior. This logic does not get stated anywhere, but is implied.

Sometimes “better resources” is simply military or physical strength, but the resources can be also quite sophisticated, such as access to refined society.

Of course, different groups do have access to different resources. It’s not about noticing or not noticing that. The trick is to treat resources as moral evidence. Good infrastructure becomes proof of better people. Bad infrastructure becomes proof of defective people.

Proof through moral high ground #

Another proof, which also “beats” the previous one, in a sense that if your opponent claims access to better resources, you can retort by claiming moral high ground. It does not work the other way around.

Moral high ground implies virtue that your tribe has, or a sin that the opposing tribe has.

• In your country there’s a memorial to a very evil person, do you know how evil they are? (i.e. your tribe is worse than mine because they are associated with sins committed in the past - the easiest moral high ground to make, mainly since there’s no tribe or group on Earth that can’t be associated with at least one wrongdoer)
• Ancestors of people associated with my tribe committed a major act of good (saved the world etc.)

Moral high ground is not always associated with the deeds of the past. It can be based on acts (rarely) or judgment (often) made at present.

Proof through superior values #

This one “beats” the two previous ones. It does not require any act, instead it’s based on the superiority of the core values. Concepts like “freedom”, “God”, “traditional family values”, and many others can be a reliable source of superiority.

This type of proof works best when you can prove your superiority and the opponent’s inferiority at the same time.

In this section, I’ll refrain from using an example. You probably know at least one relevant example yourself.

Step 3. Disguise your intent #

The last step of the proof is disguising your intent.

First, the real intent. Saying “My kind is better than your kind” can serve many purposes. At the mild end, it gives the warm feeling of superiority (at the expense of someone else). It can also offer relief from insecurity, provide status inside the group, make complex problems emotionally simple and understandable, and at its ugly end, justify cruelty.

But of course, letting this surface, would immediately make you lose the “moral high ground” battle. Instead, disguise your intent by claiming care:

• Of the future generation
• Of children
• Of your country
• Of crime victims
• etc.

Back to Reddit #

Reddit is still the social network that works best for me. It’s full of smart people, true experts in their areas and masters of their art.

That said, the temptation to turn moral judgment into the endless superiority discussion is strong lately.

The irony #

Yes, I know that this post is somehow an example of its own main point. I wish I could write it with more grace and modesty, but here we are.

In conclusion #

In any case, may your next debate be a real one. ■