"White Knighting" I don't get it

[CloudAtlas]

People can call me white knight all day long for all I care. To be the man many girls dream about, the seducer of princesses, handsome, wealthy, of noble character, in shiny armor... yea, I can think of worse insults.
And judging by the pain he seems to cause in his opponents, he seems to be quite capable on the battlefield as well.

 

[Something Amyss]

Why is this even a thing?

Because it's easier to find an excuse to find fault in another than in one's self. It's easier to dismiss critics of your views as haters, white knights, socialists, or another buzzword than to actually address them.

It's not all that different from (and can overlap with) the ad hominem school of attack.

 

[SecondPrize]

I've been doing my best to keep up on various outrages in the video games sphere over the past year. In particular, I've been reading a lot about gender issues and the resulting antagonism that such discussions bring.

One of the many parts of the discussion that I don't understand is when someone dismisses the arguments of another person by saying they are "white knighting". I understand what the term means, I just don't understand why any intelligent person would drop the term in a discussion.

According to KnowYourMeme
?White Knight? (also known as ?Internet White Knight?) is a pejorative term used to describe men who defend women on the Internet with the assumption that they are looking for a romantic reward in return.

In a discussion on gender issues in the gaming community, dismissing someone as merely "white knighting" seems particularly idiotic. I mean assuming you are using the term honestly, a). you would have to know the person's intentions which would be unknowable unless they told you or you had mind powers and, b). wouldn't make any sense as problems usually being discussed are ethereal. Sure usually the discussion come out of stories involving one or more women being harassed but the weight of the discussion is on the harassment not the person.

So how can anyone justify using the term "white knighting" in a discussion?

If you're already being a gigantic dick, what's the harm in calling someone who dares to point out how much of an ass you are a white knight?

But it is of course an insult and using it directly on a person constitutes an ad hominem. For instance, if I wanted to say "Jim Sterling is the biggest white knight on The Escapist", I would likely be banned.

An insult is only an ad hominem attack if you're suggesting that their argument is suspect. You can call Jim a white knight all day and it's just an insult, it's when you say his points in a recent video about depression quest are invalid because he's a white knight that it becomes an ad hominem attack.

 

[ForumSafari]

Personally, whenever i see someone accusing another of "white knighting", I translate it as "The only reason I personally would be polite to women would be as part of a plan to seduce them, but since I've already been a douche, it's too late for me to try that, so I'm grumpy you are doing the same."

The other option is that it can mean "ho there gentle sir, yo seem to believe that women are not capable of functioning as adults and defending their opinions without your backup".

Or alternatively "hey steady on there chap, just because she's carting a vagina about doesn't stop her being wrong. We're having an argument as equals, not a domestic so she doesn't need rescuing from being wrong".

Mostly it's a pejorative for expressing disgust at the kind of idiot that's so eager to leap to a woman's defense that they won't find out what the situation is before getting stuck in. The example that leaps immediately to mind is a crime in the US that I'm trying to dig out a reference for. Basically a woman robbed a man and tried to escape, the man caught up and a fight started, several male onlookers then beat the guy up and led the woman to safety, assuming that because two equal members of society were fighting but one was female that it was a domestic with her as the innocent victim.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Official definitions aside I would describe a white knight as someone who is jumping to the defense of a certain person or topic not because they actually care but for other self serving motives. They don't defend a person or topic because they are passionate about it but because they want to win brownie points with a certain group, convince other people of their own moral superiority or just to give themselves a pat on the back. Usually they go straight to smug under-handed insults instead of actually discussing anything and will stalk the discussion calling out everyone who says something contrary to what he (or she) is trying to defend. I guess if you get to the more standard definition of just men defending women for no reason than them being women its really not that uncommon on the internet or in real life.

The defending of women by men simply because they are women does not seem to bother me as much. Its a bit weird but logically it probably has something to do with biology. Historically it has been a mans job to protect women so that may have something to do with it. The second pisses me the hell off though and as far as the internet goes it seems to be a lot more common. People who do "good things" just to make themselves feel better are bad people.

 

[Bruce]

White knight can be used by two groups.

Feminists, who are describing a real issue they have with guys who feel they cannot defend themselves, and often end up talking over them in their eagerness to show off how feminist friendly they are, or...

People who are about as sexist as the KKK is racist, who use it as their equivalent to the KKK's various terms for white people who disagree with racism.

Nine times out of ten the person using the term belongs to the latter group.

 

[Nathaniel Grey]

I feel as though it's been made clear in most cases, as it has been made clear in this very thread, that slang terms take on different meanings depending on the person that uses them. While the author quoted KnowYourMeme as the definition of the word many others have gone on to interpret what White Knighting means to them. Depending on your definition the word can or can not apply to a discussion. I was unaware that the term "White Knighting" was ever used to cognate the idea of a man trying receive a romantic reward from a female. I have used the word to describe men who protect women from other men, when said protection wasn't necessary or needed. It applies mostly to real life situations, but I can see how it can apply to written discussions.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I tend to associate it with Nice GuyTM: guys who act all friendly to women, but get angry when they don't get sex as a reward for acting nice to them.

White Knighting is a bit like that.

But that's my definition.

 

[Vegosiux]

but as it is you've got onlookers making a very reasonable judgement call on what they actually saw.

Fact remains that a man who was victim of a crime got beaten up for trying to just get back what was stolen from him. But apparently that's okay because "men are more likely to be abusers" and saying that isn't sexist, not at all.

On the other hand, if it was two men, one black, one white, and the black guy was being robbed, but then beaten up because "black people are more likely to be criminals, so the onlookers made a very reasonable judgement on what they actually saw"...

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I've begun to feel that someone who genuinely wants to help another person (female or otherwise) who seems to be in trouble has to check themselves before getting involved, especially on the internet. We used to call folks like this good Samaritans but now it seems some folk are of the mind that nobody needs help and anyone who tries is just trying to get attention, laid, whatever.
I know there are douchebags out there who use scenarios like that for the express purpose of gaining something, but we've become a society of non-involvement whether out of fear of being called something we're not, derision or just apathy. I've always felt that doing nothing is just as bad as doing wrong, and if you see a person, animal, whatever in trouble and you're able to help you should. Consequences be damned, I'll always try to help and if the person is ungrateful, no skin off my back. And why should we give a flying fuck what other people think? Our own self-image is the only one that matters in the end.
Now there are situations where we may not know the whole truth of a situation, but is it more wrong to err on the side of trying to help or to do nothing?
Meh, sometimes humanity baffles me. Especially on the internet.

 

[wooty]

Hmmm, I usually just go down the route of "this persons views/actions match my own, I guess I'll align with them", regardless of gender, religion, race, console manufacturer choice, other, blaaaaaah.

Thats pretty much it, that also goes for the big scary outdoor world too, not just the cozy hermitage that is the internet.

 

[AngloDoom]

I agree that on the internet a large amount of people crying 'white knight' might just have crossed a line somewhere and don't like being called out on it. Sometimes, though, there are just two people swapping insults back-and-fourth on the interwebs with no sign of actual argument ("ur gay!" "no! ur a fag!") and the one with the nickname coolguy2013 will receive a lot more abuse than xladynekox, when nobody's quite sure what the hell they're arguing about. Of course, that's not to say that some women won't receive abuse just because they're female either. People just like to be angry at each other on the internet, so it's hard to really say whether it's 'white knighting' or just looking for a target.

However, I don't think you need to be a mind-reader to use the term 'white knight'. A friend of mine used to get regularly beaten the poop out of him by his (now ex) girlfriend, sometimes in front of groups of friends or even strangers. Not once did anyone step in. One time, during aforementioned poop-outing-beat-downs, his grabbed his girlfriend's wrist hard enough to bruise, held her against the wall, and threatened to hit her right back if she ever hit him again. The next day, several of his male friends (who had previously seen his girlfriend kicking his face off) gave him their own variation of a beat-down because he dared threaten his girlfriend.

I don't think you need to be able to read minds to say that's just wrong on such a ridiculous level.

 

[Vegosiux]

So if you saw a man chasing another man, catching him, and then attacking him, you would expect onlookers to... what? Join in and beat up the terrified guy who was just chased down and attacked? Do nothing?

Yell after them, try to break them up, but call the police first. Now, with one of me and two of them, I'd likely need some more people to help me, but get both fighting dudes to stay put and let the cops sort it out, that's why we have them. If I was on my own, either one of them would likely be able to kick my ass, so I'd just call the cops and report it, because righting injustices is lower on my priority list than ending the day with all bones intact, however.

It would be awesome if everyone acted in a perfectly legal and rational manner devoid of any emotional, knee-jerk response where they just broke up the fight and held the two for police, but we don't get to live in a perfect world where the seeming aggressor is given the absolute benefit of the doubt. And, while it's not okay (did I ever say it was okay?) that a man got beaten up for trying to catch his thief, it's not some great condemnation of society or the onlookers that they took the side of the person the man was attacking at the moment.

Well, I'll drop the tact for a moment, but I think the only reason one would say "it's not some great condemnation" is because the person assumed to be "the more likely perpetrator" was of the so-called "privileged class" in this case. Had it been a black guy, and the actual perpetrator a white guy, we'd be drowning in calls of racism. And rightly so, because it is racist to assume that because someone's black they're likely the perpetrator. Apparently, though, it's not sexist to assume that because someone's a man, they're likely the aggressor.

 

[balladbird]

I wholly agree that "white knight" is a term that has no place in an intelligent discussion, though the semantics of it are a bit new to me.

I was under the impression that the accusations of "white knigting" implied that the person was engaging in the self-righteous act of defending womankind, as though they couldn't defend themselves without a hero to champion them, thus creating the ironic situation that they were guilty of the same thing they accused antifeministsof doing, with only the circumstances changing.

It's a bollocks claim, anyway, and I guess my interpretation of the slur required more wit than the average angry internet person is willing to put into their insults. XD

 

[Mr_Spanky]

It's an easy put down - one that can be used without any kind of justification and usually in lack of any kind of real argument. The negative connotation being that "You're only defending this person/subject to win the admiration/affection of *whoever/whatever it is the argument is about* in the first place".

Imo the term should be banned on the Escapist in the same way troll/trolling is. It serves no good purpose, it's sloppy, presumptuous and usually completely inaccurate - tbh it's only purpose when I've seen it used is derailing and antagonism.

 

[Robert Marrs]

but as it is you've got onlookers making a very reasonable judgement call on what they actually saw.

Fact remains that a man who was victim of a crime got beaten up for trying to just get back what was stolen from him. But apparently that's okay because "men are more likely to be abusers" and saying that isn't sexist, not at all.

On the other hand, if it was two men, one black, one white, and the black guy was being robbed, but then beaten up because "black people are more likely to be criminals, so the onlookers made a very reasonable judgement on what they actually saw"...

That is because the only demographic you can discriminate against(and not only get away with it but be laughed at for even suggesting said discrimination even exists)is white males. I'm not one of those crazy white genocide people but it is totally reasonable to state that white men are held to more double standards than any other demographic on the planet. I think its fair to say that if a woman had stolen something from a black man and two white men came and beat the black man up as he way trying to reclaim his own property that situation would have gotten much more attention and few people would be trying to make excuses for it.