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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Defending a girl because she's a girl is just as sexist as harassing her for being a girl.
Just ban the wrongdoer and move on.

Eleuthera:

Some_weirdGuy:
What about dark knighting?
You know, the popular practice of acting like batman around women on the internet?

So, being a billionaire, dating supermodels and then having your butler drive them home unfulfilled (and possibly drugged) at the end of the evening?

that's only midweek, on Friday nights you have to cut lose and really go for it.

OT - Er... the definition of "white knighting" seems confused but I always thought it was a bloke rushing to defend a female, usually with disregard for whether defense is required or warranted, often with the tinge of a belief said female may pay attention to them as a result. Oh yes, this all happens over the interwebs.

I think the tedium of the sexism debate probably perverted its meaning a little, widened it to include the hyper-sensitive "-ism" moralising crew, who like to gather for sermons of sanctimony on how all games should be about black, Chinese lesbian taxidermists with tourettes, one hand and defintely no discernable breasts. Did you hear that! No breasts, they are bad.

(I may have exagerated that last paragraph)

DugMachine:
I think you're version of "white knight" is different than the one I'm used to. Standing up for what you believe in is fine but purposely being offended for someone (particularly females) because you think they can't defend themselves is in my book, a white knight.

yupp, this is about as white as the beard in your avatar is, white knighting is somewhat self explanatory, but it can go in multiple degrees (defending a woman because you might think it'll lead to pussy, or you think because she is a woman she cannot defend herself, etc..)

sticking up for what you believe in is no problem at all, but the above is usually taken way too far and is sexist.

Abomination:
White knighting is far more prominent in MMORPGs like World of Warcraft where someone would have their raid spot defended because they had gained the sexual attractions of an influential member despite that individual's performance being sub-par.

Except we already had a perfectly serviceable word for that. Favoritism.

OT: White Knight, like "Fanboy", is just basic argumentum ad hominem. I'm not sure why we need to spend a lot of time breaking it down and discussing the different circumstances under which it might apply. It's a hostile label that speaks volumes about the people who employ it non-ironically.

As far as I understand that, "white knighting" is a male excessively defending a female from abuse over the internet, usually used as an insult by those who accuse "white knights" of doing it to make themselves feel better/"prove" they're not sexist/look like a "nice guy". Essentially, it's cyber-chivalry. (Although I'm not sure why "kiss-ass" or "favouritism" weren't perfectly acceptable terms for that sort of behaviour anyway...)

But if you were referring to Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight...well, I guess the whole "holding an innocent kid hostage and almost killing him" could count as "bad".

Because it's unnecessary. If you're so thin skinned to insults you need assurance from a stranger, you have no place being on the internet in the first place.

Colour-Scientist:

BiscuitTrouser:

The question is how do we tell the difference? You see if i see someone, anyone, abusing or being horrible to another person and the victim is CLEARLY being offended or upset by it (in other words they dont seem to be handling it well themselves or it seems to be hurting them) ill say something about the other person being an asshole. I mean hell even if the person doesnt mind at all ill still call the other person an asshole.

But how do you distinguish my reaction from a sexist reaction? Arnt they almost identical? You dont know what i do outside of an argument. I might go stand up for anyone of any race, gender or sexuality after this one. Its hard to call someone a white knight because it implies you know ALL people they have defended past and future. When all you know is present.

This.

I've often seen guys arguing points for feminism and other such topics, only to be accused of "white knighting". It seems like the default response to dismiss a man arguing a point in favour of women/feminism/whatever the fuck, even if there aren't any women involved in the discussion/argument.

And of course there are no women in the Internet anyway. I have been accused of 'white-knighting' for having opinions on feminism, and few times that I'm being 'offensive to women' for having feminist opinions (while their opinion aren't offensive because of reasons)...

There certainly are people who defend people and things for dumb reasons (often because they are fans), but what's the point of trying to guess their motives? Either their arguments hold water or they don't. Most of the time you can't be sure why they hold those positions, why try guessing?

Res Plus:
black, Chinese lesbian taxidermists with tourettes, one hand and defintely no discernable breasts.

Sounds hot.

I think what disturbs me the most is that the mere act of abstaining from harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman is considered white knighting. Hell, just being a kind person is considered white knighting.

Being a kind person does not make you a white knight, it makes you a kind person. People seem to make the mistake of thinking that showing kindness is purely done for selfish reasoning when in reality its done for mutual benefit and social cohesion.

The whole white knight thing is purely a reactionary insult. Its very similar to how one would call someone 'gay' as insult..

Quadocky:
I think what disturbs me the most is that the mere act of abstaining from harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman is considered white knighting.

If you abstain from harassing someone because they're a woman you're white knighting. That would imply that you would harass them if they were male. I guess you meant something else though?

Froggy Slayer:
This isn't to say that I always agree with them, but why has the idea of sticking up for you ideals and values seen as a bad thing by a lot of people these days (*cough*4chan*cough*)? As I've said, I don't always agree with some of these people, but I respect them for standing with their morals. It actually kind of disturbs me that so many people think of having morals and basic human empathy as a bad thing.

Ok, starters, 4chan is not as bad a site as everyone thinks, its not a place of evil, its a place where a bunch of people gather, simple as that, 2nd, White Knighting is, by definition, defending a woman no matter what online, and 3rd, White knighting is bad for the simple fact of they are defending a person for the reason of they are a woman, and simple fact, if you say something stupid or are annoying, you should be called out on it, boy or girl.

BloatedGuppy:

Abomination:
White knighting is far more prominent in MMORPGs like World of Warcraft where someone would have their raid spot defended because they had gained the sexual attractions of an influential member despite that individual's performance being sub-par.

Except we already had a perfectly serviceable word for that. Favoritism.

OT: White Knight, like "Fanboy", is just basic argumentum ad hominem. I'm not sure why we need to spend a lot of time breaking it down and discussing the different circumstances under which it might apply. It's a hostile label that speaks volumes about the people who employ it non-ironically.

Favoritism does not get into the nitty-gritty as to the reasons FOR the favoritism. It's one thing to pull favorites because you've had a long history with an individual and trust them, it's another to pull favorites because you believe it'll lead to sexual intercourse.

Huh, seems to be a lot in line with "bros before hoes" in that a male should not dismiss his friends for the chance at sexual intercourse.

danon:

Quadocky:
I think what disturbs me the most is that the mere act of abstaining from harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman is considered white knighting.

If you abstain from harassing someone because they're a woman you're white knighting. That would imply that you would harass them if they were male. I guess you meant something else though?

He is saying abstaining from 'harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman'. As opposed to abstaining 'from harassing an individual' on the basis she is a woman.

Dijkstra:

danon:

Quadocky:
I think what disturbs me the most is that the mere act of abstaining from harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman is considered white knighting.

If you abstain from harassing someone because they're a woman you're white knighting. That would imply that you would harass them if they were male. I guess you meant something else though?

He is saying abstaining from 'harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman'. As opposed to abstaining 'from harassing an individual' on the basis she is a woman.

You don't get called a white knight for "abstaining" from insulting a woman you get called it for "defending" and it doesn't require the individual being defended be a woman.

Abstaining is a form of inaction, it would take a truly depraved individual to harass someone for not joining in on a public shaming.

Abomination:

Dijkstra:

danon:

If you abstain from harassing someone because they're a woman you're white knighting. That would imply that you would harass them if they were male. I guess you meant something else though?

He is saying abstaining from 'harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman'. As opposed to abstaining 'from harassing an individual' on the basis she is a woman.

You don't get called a white knight for "abstaining" from insulting a woman you get called it for "defending" and it doesn't require the individual being defended be a woman.

Abstaining is a form of inaction, it would take a truly depraved individual to harass someone for not joining in on a public shaming.

You get called a white knight if the one calling it doesn't like your argument, that simple. Sorry, there's no Santa and there are no psychics to read people's minds. It easily gets thrown around in situations where motives cannot easily be discerned and makes a huge, and idiotic, assumption.

Also I was just clarifying what he said. Certainly it takes a bit more to provoke the rabid posters that will scream white knight for no real reason.

Dijkstra:

Abomination:

Dijkstra:

He is saying abstaining from 'harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman'. As opposed to abstaining 'from harassing an individual' on the basis she is a woman.

You don't get called a white knight for "abstaining" from insulting a woman you get called it for "defending" and it doesn't require the individual being defended be a woman.

Abstaining is a form of inaction, it would take a truly depraved individual to harass someone for not joining in on a public shaming.

You get called a white knight if the one calling it doesn't like your argument, that simple. Sorry, there's no Santa and there are no psychics to read people's minds. It easily gets thrown around in situations where motives cannot easily be discerned and makes a huge, and idiotic, assumption.

Also I was just clarifying what he said. Certainly it takes a bit more to provoke the rabid posters that will scream white knight for no real reason.

"Abstain" means you aren't involved in the discussion, so you have no argument to be called a white knight over.

I understand it has seen incredible misuse and lost its intended meaning - like almost anything the internet gets a hold of - but just because it is used inappropriately does not mean the concept is wrong.

Motive is something that can be discerned and it's usually the ones have the sound mind to use the term white knight in the appropriate manner who can make accurate assessments of another's motive, because they will have observed the individual long enough to make such an assessment.

Just because idiots use the term in the incorrect manner doesn't make the term inaccurate when it is used in the correct manner.

Definition:
"White Knight - A term that has been thrown around out of context for so long it no longer has any "real" meaning.
Included amongst other words to be discarded - Fanboy, Entitled and Overrated."

Abomination:

Just because idiots use the term in the incorrect manner doesn't make the term inaccurate when it is used in the correct manner.

Unfortunately with Language [at least the english language] "correct" is merely what the majority believe it to be. With the language "evolving" to meet the current belief.

Abomination:

Dijkstra:

Abomination:
You don't get called a white knight for "abstaining" from insulting a woman you get called it for "defending" and it doesn't require the individual being defended be a woman.

Abstaining is a form of inaction, it would take a truly depraved individual to harass someone for not joining in on a public shaming.

You get called a white knight if the one calling it doesn't like your argument, that simple. Sorry, there's no Santa and there are no psychics to read people's minds. It easily gets thrown around in situations where motives cannot easily be discerned and makes a huge, and idiotic, assumption.

Also I was just clarifying what he said. Certainly it takes a bit more to provoke the rabid posters that will scream white knight for no real reason.

"Abstain" means you aren't involved in the discussion, so you have no argument to be called a white knight over.

Try reading the bold. Reading what you reply to is a very useful skill.

I understand it has seen incredible misuse and lost its intended meaning - like almost anything the internet gets a hold of - but just because it is used inappropriately does not mean the concept is wrong.

I have doubts about your 'understanding' since I fail to see clear evidence of an 'intended' meaning. Furthermore, again try to read what you reply to. Amazingly you will not find a section on 'this concept is wrong', you will find a section about the usage. Which is what you brought up in your reply.

Motive is something that can be discerned and it's usually the ones have the sound mind to use the term white knight in the appropriate manner who can make accurate assessments of another's motive, because they will have observed the individual long enough to make such an assessment.

I'm going to say you're making shit up because there's no way you can really determine who can 'usually' discern something like that. Yes, motive can be discerned. It is, however, mostly irrelevant and rarely will you be able to determine it online no matter how long you observe.

Just because idiots use the term in the incorrect manner doesn't make the term inaccurate when it is used in the correct manner.

Just because you refuse to properly read a post doesn't mean that I talked about the term being inaccurate when used in the 'correct' manner. So please, do try reading it before replying to it. We'll have a lot less of this rubbish that has nothing to do with what I said.

Is this seriously a genuine discussion thread about the vapid misogyny on 4chan ?

I also don't think you have the slightest idea what 'white knighting' actually means, OP.

wulf3n:

Abomination:

Just because idiots use the term in the incorrect manner doesn't make the term inaccurate when it is used in the correct manner.

Unfortunately with Language [at least the english language] "correct" is merely what the majority believe it to be. With the language "evolving" to meet the current belief.

That is something I can understand others believing but I refuse to. When something is used in an incorrect manner it doesn't become "correct" due to many people using it incorrectly. It remains an incorrect use of the word, especially when use in such a manner results in the word having no meaning.

A fanboy is someone who defends or praises a property with an over-abundance of enthusiasm and believes it can do no wrong.
Entitled is a status one acquires by being born or having earned the rights to an item or service.
Overrated is a situation where an object has received near-universal hyperbolic praise that ignores its failings.

Because many people use the terms incorrectly does not change the fact those are the correct uses for them.

Abomination:
That is something I can understand others believing but I refuse to. When something is used in an incorrect manner it doesn't become "correct" due to many people using it incorrectly. It remains an incorrect use of the word, especially when use in such a manner results in the word having no meaning.

There's an entire field of study on the matter called Etymology. They use the term "Root meaning" instead of "Real Meaning" indicating the the accepted meaning changes with the culture it is used in.

Abomination:

A fanboy is someone who defends or praises a property with an over-abundance of enthusiasm and believes it can do no wrong.

Fanboy: a boy who is an enthusiastic devotee (as of comics or movies)

Abomination:

Entitled is a status one acquires by being born or having earned the rights to an item or service.

Enititled:
to give a title to
or designate to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something <this ticket entitles the bearer to free admission>

Though I think you were refering to

Enititlement:
the state or condition of being entitled
or a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
or a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
or belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Abomination:

Overrated is a situation where an object has received near-universal hyperbolic praise that ignores its failings.

Overrated:to rate, value, or estimate too highly

Abomination:

Because many people use the terms incorrectly does not change the fact those are the correct uses for them.

But according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary those aren't the correct uses for them.

Dijkstra:

Abomination:

Dijkstra:

You get called a white knight if the one calling it doesn't like your argument, that simple. Sorry, there's no Santa and there are no psychics to read people's minds. It easily gets thrown around in situations where motives cannot easily be discerned and makes a huge, and idiotic, assumption.

Also I was just clarifying what he said. Certainly it takes a bit more to provoke the rabid posters that will scream white knight for no real reason.

"Abstain" means you aren't involved in the discussion, so you have no argument to be called a white knight over.

Try reading the bold. Reading what you reply to is a very useful skill.

Right back at you to my first post you quoted? I was discussing someone abstaining meaning they make NO argument so they can't be called a white knight for an argument they didn't make. For some reason you gave an example of the term white knight being used in an incorrect and pointless manner.

I understand it has seen incredible misuse and lost its intended meaning - like almost anything the internet gets a hold of - but just because it is used inappropriately does not mean the concept is wrong.

I have doubts about your 'understanding' since I fail to see clear evidence of an 'intended' meaning. Furthermore, again try to read what you reply to. Amazingly you will not find a section on 'this concept is wrong', you will find a section about the usage. Which is what you brought up in your reply.

Many people have mentioned the initial and intended meaning of the word in this thread: a declaration of someone's motive in regards to their stance on a topic; frequently coming to the aid of a female who has earned the scorn and ire she is receiving in the hopes of sexual reward.

Motive is something that can be discerned and it's usually the ones have the sound mind to use the term white knight in the appropriate manner who can make accurate assessments of another's motive, because they will have observed the individual long enough to make such an assessment.

I'm going to say you're making shit up because there's no way you can really determine who can 'usually' discern something like that. Yes, motive can be discerned. It is, however, mostly irrelevant and rarely will you be able to determine it online no matter how long you observe.

When you've interacted with a person long enough you can usually discern their motives, even on the internet. People certainly don't always wear their hearts on their sleeve but to say you don't eventually get to know somebody's motives "no matter how long you observe" is certainly false. It can also be made in a short duration in the situations where the white knight term is used correctly, where an individual is defending a member of the opposite sex when the individual has no actual argument other than "stop being so mean" to defend the ire the defended has earned.

Just because idiots use the term in the incorrect manner doesn't make the term inaccurate when it is used in the correct manner.

Just because you refuse to properly read a post doesn't mean that I talked about the term being inaccurate when used in the 'correct' manner. So please, do try reading it before replying to it. We'll have a lot less of this rubbish that has nothing to do with what I said.

The use of the term in the incorrect manner is directly related to how motive is not being discerned correctly. Calling someone a white knight just because you do not agree with the stance they are taking is a prime example as to not knowing someone's motive.

wulf3n:
But according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary those aren't the correct uses for them.

Highlight HOW it was wrong, do not give an example that holds parallels and claim my definitions to be inaccurate.

Entitled can be either a verb or an adjective. My version was the adjective.

In the end, people using the words inaccurately does not change those very definitions.

Abomination:

Dijkstra:

Abomination:
"Abstain" means you aren't involved in the discussion, so you have no argument to be called a white knight over.

Try reading the bold. Reading what you reply to is a very useful skill.

Right back at you to my first post you quoted? I was discussing someone abstaining meaning they make NO argument so they can't be called a white knight for an argument they didn't make. For some reason you gave an example of the term white knight being used in an incorrect and pointless manner.

I suppose it would be too much to expect you actually would read it and see the bit where I said it certainly takes a bit more. Of course you'd fail to do so and just read the other part. So again, please read a post before replying to it.

I understand it has seen incredible misuse and lost its intended meaning - like almost anything the internet gets a hold of - but just because it is used inappropriately does not mean the concept is wrong.

I have doubts about your 'understanding' since I fail to see clear evidence of an 'intended' meaning. Furthermore, again try to read what you reply to. Amazingly you will not find a section on 'this concept is wrong', you will find a section about the usage. Which is what you brought up in your reply.

Many people have mentioned the initial and intended meaning of the word in this thread: a declaration of someone's motive in regards to their stance on a topic; frequently coming to the aid of a female who has earned the scorn and ire she is receiving in the hopes of sexual reward.

And where is your evidence it was the initial and intended meaning? I hate to break it to you, but a lot of people assuming something doesn't make it any more true. Maybe you can reevaluate your stance with that new information in mind.

Motive is something that can be discerned and it's usually the ones have the sound mind to use the term white knight in the appropriate manner who can make accurate assessments of another's motive, because they will have observed the individual long enough to make such an assessment.

I'm going to say you're making shit up because there's no way you can really determine who can 'usually' discern something like that. Yes, motive can be discerned. It is, however, mostly irrelevant and rarely will you be able to determine it online no matter how long you observe.

When you've interacted with a person long enough you can usually discern their motives, even on the internet.

Claiming 'usually' is not evidence. Another new fact for you to incorporate.

People certainly don't always wear their hearts on their sleeve but to say you don't eventually get to know somebody's motives "no matter how long you observe" is certainly false.

Please read what was written and keep it in context. I said online and rarely. Really, do you find me asking you to refer to what I actually said to be too arduous? If so then I don't see any value in talking to you. Being online you hardly get a full view of the person.

It can also be made in a short duration in the situations where the white knight term is used correctly, where an individual is defending a member of the opposite sex when the individual has no actual argument other than "stop being so mean" to defend the ire the defended has earned.

Crappy logic. Myriad reasons that is possible, anyone with a strong reasoning ability should know it takes more to think a reward is expected. They could be friends, they could legitimately think you're just being an ass, etc. You're just proving the truth about people who use the term. They jump to conclusions, they are simply irrational. Albeit you're just one example.

Just because idiots use the term in the incorrect manner doesn't make the term inaccurate when it is used in the correct manner.

Just because you refuse to properly read a post doesn't mean that I talked about the term being inaccurate when used in the 'correct' manner. So please, do try reading it before replying to it. We'll have a lot less of this rubbish that has nothing to do with what I said.

The use of the term in the incorrect manner is directly related to how motive is not being discerned correctly. Calling someone a white knight just because you do not agree with the stance they are taking is a prime example as to not knowing someone's motive.

And now we see yet another example of you not reading the post. Maybe I need to say it clearer for you. I. Never. Said. That. The. Term. Is. Inaccurate. When. Used. In. The. Correct. Manner. That is not something I commented on. Can I expect an actual reply this time or more rubbish that talks past me?

White Knights are the flip side of a coin that most sensible people hate.

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. It's a weird predator/prey scenario, with the "female" (or guy acting female) taking advantage of desperate nerds on the internet, and desperate nerds willingly being taken advantage of. Most sensible people are against the entire practice because it is unproductive and irrelevant on the web. The fact that you're a female or not is irrelevant, so every announcement is just a cry for attention and free stuff.

The reason guys sometimes get violently mad at white knights is generally because they have been there.

That's just one females point of view.

Sometimes I like to change my XBL avatar to female, change my armor to pink, logo to hearts or whatever and change my ingame appearance to female.
My K/D goes up and I laugh evilly to the other members in my party that taught me that trick and are also using it.

Now tell me that you think you should defend someone "just because she's a girl"
We all have the same controller/keyboard and the same code running our games and I will happily plug anyone who is dumb enough to give me an opening because of my perceived gender.

I had this friend in high-school, he could kick ass on Streetfighter and was pretty handy at most other beat-em-ups.
Regardless who you were he'd never go easy on you for more than one round (if he was feeling charitable) and then wipe the floor with you for the other two. Gender, age and experience never entered into his thoughts. If you challenged him he would show you the quick way to the continue screen with surgical precision.

White knights? Pfft...

Btw, I got better at Streetfighter because of my friend. Never his equal but whenever I could get a win I truly felt I had accomplished it. He NEVER gave away a win.

Abomination:

wulf3n:
But according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary those aren't the correct uses for them.

Highlight HOW it was wrong, do not give an example that holds parallels and claim my definitions to be inaccurate.

Entitled can be either a verb or an adjective. My version was the adjective.

In the end, people using the words inaccurately does not change those very definitions.

I'm sorry I just assumed the inaccuracies were obvious

Fanboy:
Your usage of "believes it can do no wrong" is superfluous and not a part of the "correct" definition. A fanboy may believe a product can do no wrong, but the belief a product can do no wrong does not make one a fanboy.

and "over-abundance of enthusiasm" over-abundance according to what? what is considered a satisfactory abundance?

Entitled: This one isn't so much inaccurate in the comparison of the definitions just that there are several definitions.

Overrated: Does not include "near-universal hyperbolic praise" nor does it necessarily "ignores its failings"

While your definitions are technically include the Merriam-Webster definitions yours include qualifiers that alter the application.

Edit: Here's what I was looking for.

Abomination:

In the end, people using the words inaccurately does not change those very definitions.

This is called Semantic Change

you keep on using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means

Quadocky:
I think what disturbs me the most is that the mere act of abstaining from harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman is considered white knighting. Hell, just being a kind person is considered white knighting.

Incorrect. At least as far as I'm concerned. The only thing I consider "white-knighting" is "going out of your way to protect a damsel whether or not she is in distress, in order to make yourself look good."

Being a kind person does not make you a white knight, it makes you a kind person.

Correct.

People seem to make the mistake of thinking that showing kindness is purely done for selfish reasoning when in reality its done for mutual benefit and social cohesion.

And people are often right, I'm afraid to say. It might be just me, but that's what my life so far taught me - acts that look like kindness are common, acts of kindness are rare.

The whole white knight thing is purely a reactionary insult.

There are times and places where it can be applied non-ironically and be completely spot-on. NiceGuys™ exist on the internet too.

It's the same stuff as with "guys who are actually nice" and "NiceGuys™". Interestingly enough, whenever it comes to a discussion on real, offline life, there seems to be a rather large number of the latter involved. But online, it seems everyone is genuine and applying the real-life analogy to it is "purely reactionary".

I'm sorry. Does not compute. Either there are more NiceGuys™ online than accounted for, or a lot less of them than alleged in real life.

Dijkstra:
And now we see yet another example of you not reading the post. Maybe I need to say it clearer for you. I. Never. Said. That. The. Term. Is. Inaccurate. When. Used. In. The. Correct. Manner. That is not something I commented on. Can I expect an actual reply this time or more rubbish that talks past me?

I have been drawing parallels between what I said, what you said, and how they interact.

You used an example involving someone using the term "white knight" in the incorrect manner while in another paragraph also alluding to how someone could not discern another's motive on the internet.

When the term white knight is used correctly - the correct term that is used on the internet being used most frequently during the MMO boom before the release of Burning Crusade for World of Warcraft - it is used because the motives of the white knight have been discerned due to their actions. The example I gave of this situation included the phrase

when the individual has no actual argument other than "stop being so mean" to defend the ire the defended has earned

this scenario allows motive to be easily assessed. It doesn't REQUIRE a desire for sexual reward - just that it OFTEN does. What remains true is someone leaping to the defense of another when the individual deserves no such defense, often due to the individual's actions immediately prior. The white knight and the defended could be friends before hand, but it doesn't change the fact the defended is being defended for unrelated reasons to what they are receiving ire for.

When ALL of those criteria are met the use of the "white knight" term becomes accurate and is the correct use.

Motivation over the internet can be discerned. Those who use the term white knight in the correct manner usually have the sense to only use it when motive has been shown to be discerned in some way or at least there is evidence that meets the criteria to call someone a white knight. While difficult it is not impossible and various people have motives that are more easy to discern than others. When people toss out the term "white knight" in almost any conflicting situation then of course they will likely be inaccurate with their assessment of another's motive. When you apply something to everything it's going to be inaccurate most of the time.

This is related to what you said

You get called a white knight if the one calling it doesn't like your argument, that simple

because it covers the scenario you introduced of someone calling another a white knight simply because the argument being presented conflicted with the accuser's. This is not the case because it isn't "that simple" because it is not always used in that manner. It also links to the idea you raised that motive is very difficult to discern with accuracy over the internet.

Abomination:
All claims no evidence

Do try to actually back up your claims for once. Just saying 'usually' and 'OFTEN' is worthless. As far as I'm concerned you're talking about your mental fantasy land.

wulf3n:
Fanboy:
Your usage of "believes it can do no wrong" is superfluous and not a part of the "correct" definition..

Something being superfluous does not make it inaccurate.

A fanboy may believe a product can do no wrong, but the belief a product can do no wrong does not make one a fanboy

I included the word AND not OR.

and "over-abundance of enthusiasm" over-abundance according to what? what is considered a satisfactory abundance?

When does an individual become an enthusiastic devotee and not just a devotee? Many definitions depend upon the opinions of an average individual when it comes to discerning how extreme a reaction is. Such is used with the idea of "reasonable doubt", what is considered "reasonable"? It's entirely relative so the 'average' person is used.

Entitled: This one isn't so much inaccurate in the comparison of the definitions just that there are several definitions.

Was my definition an inaccurate one? Take note we are discussing how they are to be used in the current environment we frequent. When someone is called "entitled" online they frequently are and not in a bad way... because they did buy a product and thus they are entitled to its service and ownership.

Overrated: Does not include "near-universal hyperbolic praise" nor does it necessarily "ignores its failings"

When used in the common phrase we refer to "Is X overrated?" then the answer is always "Yes." if one doesn't include the idea of "near-universal" because SOMEONE SOMEWHERE will overrate it, thus making it overrated and making the question pointless.

While your definitions are technically include the Merriam-Webster definitions yours include qualifiers that alter the application.

The application is altered to be more in line with the scenarios we would likely find them attempted to being used or the phrasing in which they are used.

Edit: Here's what I was looking for.

Abomination:

In the end, people using the words inaccurately does not change those very definitions.

This is called Semantic Change

Semantic Change does take effect over time but WHEN it occurs is entirely up for debate. Presently they are still being used in an incorrect manner as no university recognized dictionaries have adopted the "wrong" definitions as an acceptable one.

Dijkstra:

Abomination:
All claims no evidence

Do try to actually back up your claims for once. Just saying 'usually' and 'OFTEN' is worthless. As far as I'm concerned you're talking about your mental fantasy land.

Hold on, let me gather those transcripts from the internet that display the exact times that a certain phrase was brought into existence. I'll just head on down to the universally accepted meme library.

That was sarcasm. No such information library exists. You are making an unreasonable request.

You get called a white knight if the one calling it doesn't like your argument, that simple

I could also ask you for your proof. You're the one who made the definite statement that it's the only time one is called a white knight. My use of "usually" and "often" allow for the fact that sometimes people get things wrong.

Abomination:
stuff

You're missing the point. It's not that your definitions are wrong, merely that they describe a smaller subset of people than the Merriam-Webster definition, narrowing the meaning. A part of semantic change.

Abomination:

The application is altered to be more in line with the scenarios we would likely find them attempted to being used or the phrasing in which they are used.

But you're still altering the definition.

Abomination:

Semantic Change does take effect over time but WHEN it occurs is entirely up for debate. Presently they are still being used in an incorrect manner as no university recognized dictionaries have adopted the "wrong" definitions as an acceptable one.

The when is irrelevant. That words change meaning over time, shows that the "correct" meaning of a word is fluid.

Abomination:

Dijkstra:

Abomination:
All claims no evidence

Do try to actually back up your claims for once. Just saying 'usually' and 'OFTEN' is worthless. As far as I'm concerned you're talking about your mental fantasy land.

Hold on, let me gather those transcripts from the internet that display the exact times that a certain phrase was brought into existence. I'll just head on down to the universally accepted meme library.

That was sarcasm. No such information library exists. You are making an unreasonable request.

It's not an unreasonable request to ask you to prove you're not making a statement up. I guess you are.

You get called a white knight if the one calling it doesn't like your argument, that simple

I could also ask you for your proof. You're the one who made the definite statement that it's the only time one is called a white knight. My use of "usually" and "often" allow for the fact that sometimes people get things wrong.

And? You're the one who came to me with no understanding of what you replied to. I don't find it worth the time to discuss anything with you, I've seen how you are in regard to actual facts.

danon:

Quadocky:
I think what disturbs me the most is that the mere act of abstaining from harassing an individual on the basis that she is a woman is considered white knighting.

If you abstain from harassing someone because they're a woman you're white knighting. That would imply that you would harass them if they were male. I guess you meant something else though?

I meant as in using gendered slurs in the cultural context of which the term white knight exists. If you use gendered slurs, you are not a white knight, if you do not use gendered slurs you are white knight.

Its not BECAUSE they are woman. Its because the usage of gendered slurs is a terrible thing to do.

And given many different context, specifically targeting women (when the are a minority in social context) with gendered slurs can be way more harmful than specifically targeting men with gendered slurs who may be the majority in that social context.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked