This study analyses how online participants of celebrity gossip position themselves in relation to their audience through forms of moral argumentation and thereby contribute to social hierarchies. In this study, forms of moral argumentation are seen as enthymemes, that is, claim-reason units based on moral norms as premises. The material consists of a total of 900 asynchronous online comments in English and 900 in Finnish. In addition to rhetorical argumentation analysis, the study investigates the dependency of moral argumentation on three contextual variables: gendered violence as the topic of discussion (domestic violence/female celebrities’ fights), as the shared culture of participants (Finnish-speaking, ‘national’/English-speaking, ‘multicultural’ participants) and a media institution as the moderator of online discourse (media-generated/user-generated websites). Four forms of moral argumentation were found in the material: 1) theoretical (deductive), 2) practical (contextual), 3) categorical (stereotype-based) and 4) digital (‘crowding’) enthymeme. Theoretical, practical and categorical enthymemes are rhetorical in a traditional sense because they include the hierarchical idea of moral norms as the shared, more or less authoritarian, basis of a community. Digital enthymemes, conversely, are texts without clear borders or any notion of moral norms. Such arguments characterized especially user-generated, English-language discussions concerning female celebrities’ fights. This indicates that the digital enthymeme is particularly prevalent where there is a lack of obvious hierarchies in the context of argumentation. As this study argues, however, the seemingly non-hierarchical and individualistic participation through digital enthymemes is a mere illusion, for these enthymemes are based on crowd behaviour supportive of sexist and class-bound domination.