Why is 'white knighting' seen as such a bad thing?

[wulf3n]

You used the term "inaccurate" not just "different". If you're arguing how they are "different" from M-W definitions then of course, they would only require one word for that to be true.

The usage of "inaccurate" fell under the qualifier "If accuracy is defined as the current definition" so basically just a fancy way of saying different.,

The word fluid implies frequency and ease of change because that is the very nature of fluids.

It can imply ease of change, but doesn't have to.

To call something fliud without thinking it implies a liquid aspect is a mistake.

Not according to Merriam-Webster.

Besides this really has nothing to do with my argument. So "fluid" wasn't the best choice of words, just go back and replace "fluid" with "adaptive" it makes no difference to what I'm arguing.

It needs to become almost universally accepted in a region then see it spread to others until a significant majority use the word. That is no easy task to accomplish and often happens organically rather than being forced. "White knight" is a good example as to what is required to get a word's meaning to change, its meaning hasn't changed yet DESPITE how often it is misused.

Purely speculation, and again has nothing to do with what I was arguing.

Besides you've already agreed that language evolves what are we still debating? were just going back and forth between silly statements now.

 

[Vegosiux]

It's amusing how people are berating the OP for getting the meaning of this term wrong, since I see people on this forum using this term incorrectly all the damn time.

Here's an example (the banned post at the bottom of that page).

Apparently it's possible to "white knight" a "rape apologist".

Of course it's possible, I mean, that happened on a rather sinister scale on that case where the girls was raped by the local-celebrity football players and the entire town branded her a witch who must burn in hell for daring to besmirch the name of them local-celebrities and whatnot....

I admit, details escape me as my mind is full of other stuff at the moment, but yes, it is possible to white-knight a rape apologist, or a rapist, and people have done so. Not only online even. Disturbing and all.

But, that guy deserved to get modwrath'd anyway, since what he said had nothing to do with reality really.

 

[Vegosiux]

While this makes sense, a lot of people here seem to think white knighting must have a 'personal gain' component, like getting into someone's pants, etc.

Used in the way you've described above, it doesn't really have that component.

Eaaaahhhh, I don't know..."I protected the good name of the local celebrity" is still something one might consider "personal gain" and "something to feel good about".

People are...such...incomprehensible creatures.

 

[Abomination]

You used the term "inaccurate" not just "different". If you're arguing how they are "different" from M-W definitions then of course, they would only require one word for that to be true.

The usage of "inaccurate" fell under the qualifier "If accuracy is defined as the current definition" so basically just a fancy way of saying different.,

Inaccurate also means incorrect - and is the most often used definition in such circumstances.

To call something fliud without thinking it implies a liquid aspect is a mistake.

Not according to Merriam-Webster.

Besides this really has nothing to do with my argument. So "fluid" wasn't the best choice of words, just go back and replace "fluid" with "adaptive" it makes no difference to what I'm arguing.

It has a lot to do with a word's use and definition in certain circumstances. A more focused definition does not create confusion, it eliminates it. Using "fliud" to describe a process that can take generations is using a word that is not focused enough just because in some cases it fits the definition.

It needs to become almost universally accepted in a region then see it spread to others until a significant majority use the word. That is no easy task to accomplish and often happens organically rather than being forced. "White knight" is a good example as to what is required to get a word's meaning to change, its meaning hasn't changed yet DESPITE how often it is misused.

Purely speculation, and again has nothing to do with what I was arguing.

You said neither of us know how easy it is to have the definition of a word change. I most certainly do know how a definition of a word can change and the process is anything but "easy". People don't just wake up the following morning and decide to use a different definition.

Besides you've already agreed that language evolves what are we still debating? were just going back and forth between silly statements now.

Why discuss anything anywhere without a promised tangible benefit? You can always stop replying to me.

 

[wulf3n]

You can always stop replying to me.

That I can.

capthca: return to sender.

 

[Abomination]

It is possible to white knight a rape apologist. You simply have to defend that person because you like the person's stance only because you like the person no matter what the individual is saying.

Of course it's possible, I mean, that happened on a rather sinister scale on that case where the girls was raped by the local-celebrity football players and the entire town branded her a witch who must burn in hell for daring to besmirch the name of them local-celebrities and whatnot....

I admit, details escape me as my mind is full of other stuff at the moment, but yes, it is possible to white-knight a rape apologist, or a rapist, and people have done so. Not only online even. Disturbing and all.

While this makes sense, a lot of people here seem to think white knighting must have a 'personal gain' component, like getting into someone's pants, etc.

Used in the way you've described above, it doesn't really have that component.

On the internet it OFTEN has that sexual desire component but does not always require it. As Vegosuix mentioned - there could be any incentive outside the actual merits of the argument. Perhaps the individual is popular in certain circles? Perhaps they are somehow linked to the discussion itself but want to defend in a 3rd party manner? Maybe they're just trolling?

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

...You don't seem to know what White Knighting is...

 

[Ieyke]

Yea... White Knighting is kinda chivalry gone wrong.
Coming to something's defense when it doesn't merit it, or doesn't want it, or for stupid reasons, or with a defense that is itself stupid, and it's invariably to try and make oneself seem morally superior, or with the hope of some other sort of benefit/reward.
Self righteousness.
Sanctimoniousness.
Holier-than-thou-ness.



Actual chivalry (the modern kind derived from the Chivalric Code, not the original knightly code) is simply being courteous, generous, nice, helping the helpless, defending the defenseless, being honest and honorable, etc etc, simply because you view it as the ideal way the entire world should behave, but without any expectation of recognition, without expectation that the world actually WILL behave that way, and without believing that you're better than others simply because of these things.

Most people can't really comprehend how the Chivalric Code and modern chivalry could possibly be actual things, so chivalry often gets a bad name...and lumped together with stupid shit like internet white-knighting, which is sad, really, since it's kind of the best ideal/personality trait there is.

Medieval chivalry is basically just general benevolence, the defense of your kingdom, and the relentless destruction of your enemies.
Modern chivalry is basically general benevolence, the support of those in need, and you can pretty much ignore the warfare bit.



It's also kind of sad for the actual ideal of the White Knight, which used to be the same as a Knight In Shining Armor (i.e. the truly chivalrous hero).

 

[Faelix]

White Knighting is when you claim morals while showing selfish motives.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The other side of that coin being females that go on predominately male sites, forums, and games that have to announce they are females at every opportunity so they can be showered in affection by said white knights.

Actually you only have to BE female in certain environments to be accused of attention whoring. Have a female voice on vent? Mention you're a female in passing conversation? All part of your master plan to manipulate nerds into paying attention to you. Because if there's one thing women have been repeatedly shown to desire, it is the attention of the socially awkward.

Yet, I could reference my own gender and the fact I have a penis for hours on end, and no one would accuse me of anything beyond being a little strange. Reminds me of an old guild I used to have in WoW. People would occasionally talk about their love lives in chat, and nothing was ever thought of it. Then a gay couple joined the guild, and suddenly discussion of "personal stuff" in chat was a grave misdemeanor. It was a delightful double standard for them to endure, no doubt, just as it's a delightful double standard where talking about your gender is only a social faux pas if you happen to have tits, because no doubt it means you're trying to bend the minds of nerds to your will to get...something.

But that's exactly the problem. The "natural reflexive reaction" is a patronizing one, one that assumes women cannot stand up for themselves. It's treating every woman on the internet as if she's a damsel in distress by default. How can any feminist be OK with that?

Well...

A) We have some folks arguing until they are blue in the face that their precious ad hominem "white knighting" can apply to any gender, so this is sort of irrelevant, and...

B) I don't really understand this. We're talking about arguments and discussions on the internet. If you were having a discussion about, I dunno, some game or some political topic, and I waded in and said "Vegosiux is absolutely right, you guys just aren't understanding him" or "That was an uncalled for insult, Vegosiux didn't deserve that" would you be like...fuck off man, I can take care of myself? No, you'd probably be grateful for support. Lending someone support, or sympathy, or agreeing with them on a topic is not necessarily patronization or condescension, whether that person happens to have a vagina or not. If I see someone acting like a sexist jackass in a conversation, I'm going to say something. Not because "the wimmens can't take care of themselves" or because I think the heavens will rain pussy on me if I do so, but because I find the behavior deplorable and I'd like to address it. I also speak out against homophobia, racism, animal abuse, etc, but no one has ever accused me of wanting to get busy with a fucking mink because I don't like the fur industry.

Okay I'm digressing. Defending someone/taking someone's side in an argument =/= patronization.

 

[Vegosiux]

B) I don't really understand this. We're talking about arguments and discussions on the internet. If you were having a discussion about, I dunno, some game or some political topic, and I waded in and said "Vegosiux is absolutely right, you guys just aren't understanding him" or "That was an uncalled for insult, Vegosiux didn't deserve that" would you be like...fuck off man, I can take care of myself? No, you'd probably be grateful for support.

What's the point of talking to me if you're going to tell me what I do and what I think?

Okay I'm digressing. Defending someone/taking someone's side in an argument =/= patronization.

Interesting.

This thread, second page.

But you know, it's kind of simple to notice. A person who actually agrees with you will make points, present arguments independently of you (might refer to you, but will still largely make their own case). Someone who's white-knighting for you will be more focused on you and getting across just how vile JohhnyDebater was for opposing and attacking you.

And that's where the difference lies. When people are acting in support of your case in a discussion, or when they're trying to appeal to you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

What's the point of talking to me if you're going to tell me what I do and what I think?

I would never have imagined that someone would take offense to having another person take their side in an argument, but for all I know you may be the first. I apologize for making assumptions.

Interesting.

This thread, second page.

But you know, it's kind of simple to notice. A person who actually agrees with you will make points, present arguments independently of you (might refer to you, but will still largely make their own case). Someone who's white-knighting for you will be more focused on you and getting across just how vile JohhnyDebater was for opposing and attacking you.

And that's where the difference lies.

What if JohnnyDebater was, indeed, being vile? As "JohnnyDebaters" are often wont to be, especially when discussing issues such as...I dunno...sex and gender? Is calling someone out on personal attacks "white knighting"?

And really, why are we defending the term? Someone in favor of "making points and presenting arguments" doesn't sound like the type of individual who would support or defend lazy logical fallacies like argumentum ad hominem.

 

[Tranquility]

--snip--

There is a difference. If you gender comes up because it is unavoidable, such as Teamspeak, then generally people just deal with it, only the boorish trolls still badger you, and most people just accept it. It's the announcing over chat to random people that just screams as a desperate cry for attention.

I cringe every time I'm reading chat and see "Anybody want to help a cute girl? ^_^". I blame that kind of crap for the majority of the hate aimed at my gender.