Introduction: An Example of an Actual Conversation on X
Below is a typical case from a real conversation on X (Twitter):
- a thread contains a harsh moral judgment (“those people are fanatics,” “how can anyone support them?”);
- a meta-question is asked in response: “By what criteria do you divide people and regimes into right and wrong?”;
- instead of answering about the criteria, the response declares “universal human values and the dogmas of humanism”;
- the interlocutor is then classified as “a supporter of the opposing camp”;
- the conversation ends with a ban.
This example matters because the question was not about supporting one side, but about the grounds of evaluation. Yet the very attempt to discuss those grounds was interpreted as disloyalty to a camp.
This is precisely the structure described in this document.
In Brief
Binary (camp-based) thinking is a mode in which reality is reduced to two morally charged categories:
- “us / them”;
- “right / wrong”;
- “good / evil.”
Such a scheme leaves almost no room for:
- meta-questions about criteria;
- intermediate positions;
- acknowledgment of a complex, heterogeneous reality.
Analysis of a Typical Situation
In the discussion, the person asked not who was right, but by what criteria people are divided into right and wrong in the first place.
This is a meta-level question: not about a position within a camp, but about the framework within which camps arise.
What follows is usually a standard sequence:
- Declaration of a moral source
- “I proceed from universal human values / humanism”;
- Classification of the interlocutor
- the question about criteria is interpreted as a sign of belonging to “the other camp”;
- Exclusion from dialogue
- a ban, blocking, or refusal to discuss the grounds.
This is not an accidental emotional failure but a characteristic pattern of camp-based logic.
Why the Question About Criteria Provokes Such a Reaction
Because in a camp-based system, fundamental norms are perceived as self-evident.
When questions are asked such as:
- “Who established these criteria?”
- “Why these particular criteria?”
- “Where are the limits of their application?”
this is experienced as undermining the system rather than as philosophical analysis.
The logic is simplified into a formula:
- if someone questions our foundations → they are not one of us;
- if they are not one of us → they belong to the opposing camp.
The Paradox of “Ideological Humanism”
Universality is declared in words:
- “the value of every human being”;
- “universal human norms.”
In practice, an exception often appears:
- only those who share the correct values are considered “fully worthy”;
- dissenters are labeled “fanatics,” “dangerous,” or “reactionary”;
- inhumane treatment of them becomes permissible (even if only in the form of expulsion from dialogue).
Hence the formula:
“We are harsh toward the inhumane in order to protect humanism.”
Psychologically, this is usually not experienced as a contradiction within the system.
Why a “Position Outside the Camps” Is Poorly Recognized
A binary framework usually contains no third position.
If someone says:
- “I am neither for your camp nor for the opposite one;
- I am examining the criteria and the framework”,
the system often still places them in the “other” category.
This is precisely why the same question about criteria often provokes a symmetrical reaction across different camps: “so you are on their side.”
How to Recognize Camp-Based Logic
Quick indicators:
- moral binarism (“we are good, they are evil”);
- taboo against questioning the foundations;
- automatic attribution of camp identity;
- substitution of labels for discussion of criteria;
- exclusion of dissenters instead of examination of the argument.
Practical Conclusion
The question “Where do the criteria come from?” is not a departure from the subject but a move to a deeper level of analysis.
It is precisely this move that often:
- reduces susceptibility to propaganda;
- reveals hidden dogmas;
- shows that a dispute concerns not only facts but also the rules by which they are evaluated.
That is why systems of camp-based thinking almost always perceive such a question as a threat.
Formula of the Mechanism (Brief)
- Moral declaration.
- Division into two camps.
- Question about criteria.
- Classification of the person asking.
- Exclusion from dialogue.
This is one of the most typical algorithms of binary thinking in online arguments.
