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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

wulf3n:

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.

And arguing semantics is considered by many to be a pointless and futile exercise. The definitions I gave are not incorrect, only more focused.

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.

Giving it a smaller parameter is altering but does not include aspects that make it inaccurate.

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.

The when is very relevant when engaging in a discussion today. Its CURRENT definition is what SHOULD be used to ensure there is no misunderstanding. While a meaning might be fluid it doesn't mean that at this particular point in time it has a different meaning than it did yesterday and not using that current meaning is still an incorrect use of the word.

Abomination:
And arguing semantics is considered by many to be a pointless and futile exercise.

And also completely irrelevant to any point I've raised.

Abomination:

The definitions I gave are not incorrect, only more focused.

Agreed, however they're also different to the current meanings. Basically you're not using the accepted meaning.

Abomination:

Giving it a smaller parameter is altering but does not include aspects that make it inaccurate.

Well that all depends on how you define accurate. If you define accurate as the currently accepted meaning, then your definitions are not accurate as they do not point to the same set of people.

Abomination:

The when is very relevant when engaging in a discussion today. Its CURRENT definition is what SHOULD be used to ensure there is no misunderstanding. While a meaning might be fluid it doesn't mean that at this particular point in time it has a different meaning than it did yesterday and not using that current meaning is still an incorrect use of the word.

Sure the proper meaning SHOULD be used, but you yourself have shown to not use the proper meaning.

Why are we still debating this?

I said language evolves

wulf3n:
correct" is merely what the majority believe it to be. With the language "evolving" to meet the current belief.

You agreed with me

Abomination:

Semantic Change does take effect over time

case closed.

...Because people need something to dismissive to snap at those who call them out for being boorish idiots.

Yeah, I'm sure there are males who "stick up" for women hoping for a favorable reaction. But to be blunt, given the amount of crap women can get just for admitting their gender in many corners of the Internet, a reflexive response to come to their defense, though it may be patronizing, is just an honest and forthright attempt attempt to balance things out the vast majority of the time. For every ten accusations of "White Knighting", there's nine socially stunted twits behind the keyboard dishing out that label.

Callate:

a reflexive response to come to their defense, though it may be patronizing, is just an honest and forthright attempt attempt to balance things out the vast majority of the time.

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?

Callate:
given the amount of crap women can get just for admitting their gender

In my experience, you don't get that much "crap" for revealing your gender. You get crap when you start using your gender to get special treatment. In 99% of discussions on the internet, your gender actually has very little bearing on any argument, and more often than not, throwing it out is just vying for special treatment. White Knights are the ones that give that special treatment.

It's a disgraceful practice by everyone involved.

Vegosiux:
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 a problem, in some cases. Most of the people I've seen complain about "white knighting" weren't complaining about the alleged perpetrator of the behavior being patronizing towards the person they were trying to protect, but rather that they were themselves being told off for their own behavior. I'd also argue that it doesn't have to be patronizing. It's a little bizarre to me to automatically assume that any offer of help is a presumption that one can't carry one's weight. And frankly, in a really hostile environment, even a slightly patronizing ally might be better than none at all.

wulf3n:

Abomination:
And arguing semantics is considered by many to be a pointless and futile exercise.

And also completely irrelevant to any point I've raised.

Except we are going down that line.

Abomination:

The definitions I gave are not incorrect, only more focused.

Agreed, however they're also different to the current meanings. Basically you're not using the accepted meaning.

The definitions I gave are not incorrect and do not deviate from the intended meaning. They are focused and tailored to the situation that they would be used in the examples where they are most frequently misused.

Abomination:

Giving it a smaller parameter is altering but does not include aspects that make it inaccurate.

Well that all depends on how you define accurate. If you define accurate as the currently accepted meaning, then your definitions are not accurate as they do not point to the same set of people.

They do not point to the wrong people, they might not include every person who could otherwise be in that group but they do not include people who should not be in the group - which when the word is truly misused it will do.

Abomination:

The when is very relevant when engaging in a discussion today. Its CURRENT definition is what SHOULD be used to ensure there is no misunderstanding. While a meaning might be fluid it doesn't mean that at this particular point in time it has a different meaning than it did yesterday and not using that current meaning is still an incorrect use of the word.

Sure the proper meaning SHOULD be used, but you yourself have shown to not use the proper meaning.

There's a significant difference between using a more focused meaning and using a meaning that has false positives.

Why are we still debating this?

Because you believe my definitions were incorrect and I believe they are functionally correct.

I said language evolves

wulf3n:
correct" is merely what the majority believe it to be. With the language "evolving" to meet the current belief.

You agreed with me

Abomination:

Semantic Change does take effect over time

case closed.

Saying something changes over time does not mean that at a particular point in time it is still fluid. To call it fluid is also inaccurate as that implies it changes frequently and often when in reality it is so slow a word will be lucky to change more than once a generation.

Dijkstra:

Abomination:

Dijkstra:

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.

Prove I'm not? Sorry, but that type of argument will go nowhere but in a circle. Please be respectful enough of others to not call what is likely first hand experience a bunch of lies.

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.

Ad hominem.

I don't find it worth the time to discuss anything with you, I've seen how you are in regard to actual facts.

What facts? That the term white knight is only used in one particular situation that you claimed? You don't see that as an unreasonable stance to take while demanding evidence of your debate partner when they do not do the same?

Abomination:
The definitions I gave are not incorrect and do not deviate from the intended meaning. They are focused and tailored to the situation that they would be used in the examples where they are most frequently misused.

Their application results in a different set of people to the currently accepted definition. However you want to paint it it's still a DIFFERENT definition.

Abomination:

They do not point to the wrong people, they might not include every person who could otherwise be in that group but they do not include people who should not be in the group

Based on arbitrary criteria you've added that isn't a part of the currently accepted definition. You've changed the meaning to be narrower than what is currently accepted,

Abomination:

which when the word is truly misused it will do.

What? are you saying that because others are misusing a word more then your misuse is acceptable?

Abomination:

Because you believe my definitions were incorrect and I believe they are functionally correct.

No I compared them to the Merriam-Webster definition and saw them to be different. There is no "belief" on my side, merely observation.

Abomination:

Saying something changes over time does not mean that at a particular point in time it is still fluid. To call it fluid is also inaccurate as that implies it changes frequently and often when in reality it is so slow a word will be lucky to change more than once a generation.

fluid how I used it merely indicates "subject to change or movement" and has nothing to do with frequency or time.

simply having a difference of opinion doesn't make you a white knight, and most of the time you'll be labelled as a troll instead, cause this is the internet and we can't handle different opinions.

now the way i determine if someone is a whiteknight, is if they are coming into multiple threads defending a person/place/thing despite the fact that the person/place/thing is incorrect or irrelevant. it's borderline fanboyism but can be applies to a broader amount of scenarios.

for example

lets say you are on a hardware manufacturer's forum. everyone is complaining cause the new series of keyboards don't work properly, people are demanding refunds, and warning others to avoid purchasing one. what the white knight does is wade into the middle of the shitstorm and come into a few of the threads and say something like people shouldn't be angry because the keyboards were made in taiwan and the river flooded damaging all the keyboards, this is a act of god therefore you shouldn't get mad at the company..... even tho the company sold you broken hardware. this example is a bit extreme, but from my experience white knights often irrationally defend people/places/things with this kind of logic.

whiteknight only seem to appear under certain circumstances, such as, but not limited to:

large companies making mistakes and causing shit storms: you shouldn't get mad because the company messed your stuff up, you should be grateful you had it to begin with

person/place/thing screwing over large amounts of people : there will always be someone there to tell you their actions are justified, and that everyone else are bad people for not liking being screwed over

a female says or does something stupid: holier than thou white knights, normal white knights, and thirsty simpletons, will always appear in this instance, and defend her to the last man no matter how illogical it is or what the female has done. note: only thirsty simpletons or "simps" do this specifically for a shot of having sex with the female.

online chats or webcams: mostly the same as above, but thirsty simpletons make up the majority with very very few of the other two.

from my understanding, whitknightery, or at least this form of it, is different from taking a moral stand, and different from fanboyism. in a sense it could be looked at as a form of trolling, but it's goal isn't really to intentionally piss people off and aside from the simps, they often believe what they is indeed correct, which is in a way disturbing, because arguing with people for calling a woman a slut, when she has a photo of her ass out with a tattoo that says slut in large letters across her butt cheeks defies logic. whiteknights usually don't have any valid reason for coming to the aid of the person/place/thing, which helps differentiate it from a moral stand, which is the result of strong moral belief, and fanboyism, which is a strong brand loyalty.

as to why white knighting is looked down upon, it's irrational,and depending on how you look at it, could bee seen as trolling.

wulf3n:

Abomination:
The definitions I gave are not incorrect and do not deviate from the intended meaning. They are focused and tailored to the situation that they would be used in the examples where they are most frequently misused.

Their application results in a different set of people to the currently accepted definition. However you want to paint it it's still a DIFFERENT definition.

Different, yes. Incorrect, no.

Abomination:

They do not point to the wrong people, they might not include every person who could otherwise be in that group but they do not include people who should not be in the group

Based on arbitrary criteria you've added that isn't a part of the currently accepted definition. You've changed the meaning to be narrower than what is currently accepted,

When dealing with labeling someone a negative thing it is far better to have a false negative than a false positive.

Abomination:

which when the word is truly misused it will do.

What? are you saying that because others are misusing a word more then your misuse is acceptable?

Most certainly given how often the words are misused to include things that do not match the definition at all.

Abomination:

Because you believe my definitions were incorrect and I believe they are functionally correct.

No I compared them to the Merriam-Webster definition and saw them to be different. There is no "belief" on my side, merely observation.

Something being different does not make it incorrect.

Abomination:

Saying something changes over time does not mean that at a particular point in time it is still fluid. To call it fluid is also inaccurate as that implies it changes frequently and often when in reality it is so slow a word will be lucky to change more than once a generation.

fluid how I used it merely indicates "subject to change or movement" and has nothing to do with frequency or time.

Now this is an inaccuracy by yourself, and I said "implies". On the very page, fluid means:

having particles that easily move and change their relative position without a separation of the mass and that easily yield to pressure.

Something that is subject to change or movement would be better described with the word "adaptive". Things that are adaptive CAN be fluid but not always, things that are fluid can also be adaptive but not always. To be fluid means it must change -easily- and the definitions of words hardly change easily, they require significant pressure.

Abomination:
stuff

You keep falling back on the "incorrect" defence, but I never said your definition was incorrect only different.

Abomination:

Now this is an inaccuracy by yourself, and I said "implies". On the very page, fluid means:

having particles that easily move and change their relative position without a separation of the mass and that easily yield to pressure.

How is it "Inaccurate" both meanings are "valid" according to Merriam-Webster. You implied frequency, I showed that is not always the case.

Abomination:

To be fluid means it must change -easily-

CAN mean, doesn't mean it MUST.

Besides, I don't think either of us know how "easy" it is to have a words meaning changed.

wulf3n:

Abomination:
stuff

You keep falling back on the "incorrect" defence, but I never said your definition was incorrect only different.

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.

Abomination:

Now this is an inaccuracy by yourself, and I said "implies". On the very page, fluid means:

having particles that easily move and change their relative position without a separation of the mass and that easily yield to pressure.

How is it "Inaccurate" both meanings are "valid" according to Merriam-Webster. You implied frequency, I showed that is not always the case.

The word fluid implies frequency and ease of change because that is the very nature of fluids. To call something fliud without thinking it implies a liquid aspect is a mistake.

Abomination:

To be fluid means it must change -easily-

CAN mean, doesn't mean it MUST.

Besides, I don't think either of us know how "easy" it is to have a words meaning changed.

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.

TopazFusion:
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".

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.

The thing is nobody was white knighting rape apologists in that thread. The term was used inaccurately.

TopazFusion:
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".

The difference being that that post is only one post in a sea of posts. The OP of a thread however is going to be read by everyone and as such should get their facts right if possible.

The person in the linked post was just an idiot who deserved to be banned as well.

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.,

Abomination:

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.

Abomination:

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.

Abomination:

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.

TopazFusion:
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.

TopazFusion:
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.

wulf3n:

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.

Abomination:

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.

Abomination:

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.

Abomination:
You can always stop replying to me.

That I can. :)

capthca: return to sender.

TopazFusion:

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.

Vegosiux:
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?

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

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).

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

Tranquility:
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.

Vegosiux:
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.

BloatedGuppy:

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.

Vegosiux:

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.

Vegosiux:
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.

Vegosiux:
Interesting.

This thread, second page.

Vegosiux:

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.

BloatedGuppy:
--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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked