"White Knighting" I don't get it

[BloatedGuppy]

Ah, it's devolved to quotewars now.

I'm sorry, what? Quotewars? Responding to specific comments makes it easier to read and understand what I am replying to. I'm sorry if you view that as a "war".

You didn't merely accuse me of pedantry, you stated that it was spectacular pedantry, which I assume means that it is an uncommon amount of attention to a trivial matter. It is by no means a light statement, unless it is some sort of attack or a simple matter of hyperbole. I can only assume that you are attempting to redirect the conversation by undermining me, either because you're uncomfortable with being questioned or don't fully believe in what you wrote.

Why is me calling you a pedant an attempt to "undermine you"? You are aware that whether or not someone is pedantic is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are correct.

I argued above your initial post that you actually can use terms like "White Knight" quite accurately without knowing the person, through experience or simple deduction.

Yes I know you did. I disagree.

So in essense, while you are arguing that "idiot" can certainly be used colloquially, which I wrote in my own post, you also argue that the term "White Knight" cannot.

Um, White Knight can only be used colloquially. The formal definition of "White Knight" is a Knight, who wears white. Since we are not talking about armored men on horseback, we are discussing the colloquial definition and only the colloquial definition. For which we must turn to the Urban Dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white+knight+syndrome

Now please, tell me what process of experience and deduction brings one to the infallible conclusion that Anonymous Individual does the following:

1. Rushes to the aid of ANY female they see who appears in ANY form of distress.
2. Becomes ATTRACTED to them
3. Has a STATE OF MIND, or NEED, or OBLIGATION to perform items 1 and 2.

Am I to believe that the accuser in this case is a trained FBI profiler, who has spent months studying and analyzing the individual in question, all to arrive at a conclusion that they consistently engage in said behaviors, for the sole benefit of shouting "LOL WHITE KNIGHT" in an internet argument about, I dunno, gender in video games? Is that the "experience and deduction" you are describing?

Because otherwise "experience and deduction" is "confirmation bias and prejudice".

Your fallacy is simple, you cannot decide to label the use of one term and not the other. They're both attacks, except "White Knight" might accurately describe a persons actions, while "Idiot" is just an inaccurate slur based on your opinion.

So if I decided to label broccoli a vegetable and not an orange, you would insist I had committed a logical fallacy? Idiocy is an observable behavior. "White Knight" is a state of mind.

I know "fallacy" is a fun word but it's not a descriptor for "argument I dislike".

Your rigid denial and methods are on the other hand sadly indicative of being unwilling(not incapable) to compromise.

Admittedly it was an intentional provocation to see if you would concede at all. At this point I guess it comes down to being unable to agree, despite the fact that I have conceded on more than one point and you have not.

We are discussing a single point. There has been no concession or compromise.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A quotewar is a reference to breaking up a post to respond to single parts of it instead of addressing a post as a whole, cherrypicking what you want to argue(which may or may not include quotes from other posts). You don't have to do it for my benefit, I am quite capable of reading.

Oh is that the official designation? Google and Urban dictionary reveal nothing. Because I break things into individual replies to make it easier to understand. This is also known as an "inline reply". You may continue to characterize it as "a war", "cherrypicking", "undermining", or any other hostile effort on my part if it assists you in feeling aggrieved. It's just an orderly method of response. I'd appreciate it if you employed it yourself, actually, instead of in a rambling paragraph with bizarre sentence breaks, but it's not really essential.

I already explained why your describing might be viewed as undermining. I will accept it as hyperbole, seeing as you offer no apology, nor explanation. It is relevant for me, as it is indicative of your motivation.

How should I apologize? Should I say "I am sorry you view that as undermining, that's not what I am doing"? That seems like rather a backhanded apology, does it not?

The link you provided is "White Knight Syndrome".
This is what you should be looking at. [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white%20knighting]

Oh, are we accepting THIS as the correct definition? Very well then, if you feel THIS supports your argument better, we'll look at THIS instead, and forget that other definition, even though it was exactly in line with the behavior described in the OP. Whatever works for you.

Having read this, I'm going to ask if THIS example provided:

Poster A:
Poster B: Shut up, douche.
White Knight: Hey, leave him alone. Why are you all ganging up on him?
Poster B: Quite white knighting, douche.

...is the activity you are striving to defend as the result of "experience and deduction". Has Poster B used his experience and deduction to effectively apply the label of "douche" as well? Because I'd feel pretty comfortable labeling Poster B as an asshole, if not an idiot.

Experience is if you've done it yourself, you know the reasoning and feelings behind the action and should be able to recognize it.

Actually that's someone assuming their personal experience and feelings apply to other people. It's a form of narcissistic projection.

Deduction is when someone posts a clearly heated argument ripe with emotion and a lack of basic logic and interpreting their reasoning, which is fairly simple if you possess basic people skills.

All you know there is that they've posted a heated argument ripe with emotion and a lack of basic logic. This can manifest itself in any number of ways. One example is posting "Stop White Knighting, Douche", and then dropping the mic like suggested in the definition you helpfully provided.

Is it empirical evidence and infallible? No. Neither is your label, though you present it as such.

Did I ever say the term "idiot" was "empirical and infallible"? How on earth would that be empirical, might I ask? If I said someone was brave, would THAT be empirical? If I said someone was witty, would THAT be empirical? What if I said they were lazy, or affable, or curt? All those things are basic human behaviors that we have invented language to describe. I'm not sure it was ever intended that we measure them empirically in order to prove the truth of what we say.

"White Knighting" is a very specific pattern of activity fueled by a set of complex emotions and motives. You have provided a 2nd urban dictionary link that (dubiously) supports your position that it can in fact mean defending anyone in any fashion in any circumstances whatsoever. It also suggests the correct reply to this behavior is to be a smarmy, insulting shithead, so I'm not sure why you're championing it. And yes, those are labels, and no, they're not empirical.

Notably, the 2nd entry reflects the usage in the link I first provided, which is also the method in which this insult is applied in 99.9% of cases...at least on this website, which is germane to the context of this discussion.

However, since we don't deal in absolutes and social science, we're left with debating and trying to reach common ground for the purpose of understanding eachother.

Do you believe that the use of "White Knight", as in "Stop White Knighting douche" as supplied, is a form of formal debate, and/or an attempt to reach common ground and/or understanding?

"White Knight Syndrome" can be state of mind, though your own link has several descriptions that you conviniently neglected to quote. "White Knight" or "White Knighting" is spontaneous behaviour.

Yes, it was all part of my master plan. You've foxed me again, Holmes.

EDIT: I actually went back to check after I posted this and the second, third, fourth and sixth definitions all support the first. The fifth is completely oddball and highly specific and supports neither your argument nor mine. How many definitions deep on the URBAN DICTIONARY do you think it is acceptable to parse? Whoops, there was only six. So what are we even talking about here?

There have been concessions, which you may have skipped while reading.

Again, we are discussing a single point. Whether or not the terms "idiot" and "White Knight" are interchangeable in terms of the deduction path of how they are applied. Whatever "concessions" you feel you've made are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You may argue both terms are insulting...certainly they are. The sticking point is that you are suggesting that "White Knight" is a basic, easily applied label to a basic, easily identifiable human activity. As it is slang/a colloquialism you have found a single definition amongst many that supports the assertion that this is a generic term that is applied generically to a generic activity...I.E. any words spoken in defense of anything is "white knighting", and thus subject to insult. So here's a concession. Yes, by that incredibly vague and nebulous definition, just about anyone could call anyone else a white knight at some junction and have it be, at worst, an incredibly mild commentary on their behavior.

However, we both know that is not how it is being discussed in the context of this thread. Go back and read the OP. Read the "Know Your Meme" page he posted as a way to inform the discussion. I think it should be pretty evident which definition of the word best applies for the purposes of this discussion.

Is it possible that by assuming that people using the term "White Knight" to sneeringly dismiss someone in (literally every single time it has ever happened) a gender/feminism/sexuality thread are idiots, that I am UNFAIRLY labeling someone who just meant "Look, person A is defending item B, this is called White Knighting I think! I shall use my Term of the Day!"? Yes, it's possible. I'm willing to take that risk for the sake of expedience. Sometimes words get befouled due to misappropriation. Heck, you can barely even say "niggardly" any more, and that's a totally innocent word. My suggestion would be that people cease to use the term "White Knight" in a dismissive fashion on the internet to avoid looking bad. Sad, I know, but there you have it.

It's a tough old world.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

Are you actually asking a question, or are you just saying "I think people who use the term in an internet discussion are stupid and nobody should care about what they say" in a very roundabout way? It's hard to tell sometimes, and that question looks loaded.

I'm actually asking the question though I admit I'm personally very bias when it comes to gender discussions why upon re-reading my OP, I can see has shown through.

I really don't understand how so many in the online world could drop the term White Knight so flippantly when they are obviously able to come up with well reasoned arguments in all other areas. I mean unlike the realms of politics and religion, there is no dogma or ideology that is readily apparent, and the anonymity of the internet means that peer-pressure is virtually impossible. So why?

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

Its certainly easier IRL to describe a person's motivations as you have access to many more indicators. Those same indicators are absent on online discussions however. That's why I compared the exercise to mind-reading.

So yeah, not exactly answering the question the op asked, but I hope it was somewhat relevant.

It may not be all that relevant, but it was damn interesting. Thank you for that.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

So if I'm a White Knighter myself, why am I so hypocritical that I accuse others of doing it?

Well, because often when I see people in here discuss gender issues in gaming, I see White Knighting everywhere and it's even more hypocritical, some times to a ridiculous degree that makes you lose faith in humanity and the concept of egality altogether.

Remember when I said that it can be a manifestation of sexism? Here you have half a userbase rigidly defending women and assuming things on their behalf, while using tactics to discredit anyone who argues against or even tries to debate with them.
I'd like to believe that my own experiences with jumping to the rescue of others enables me to see it when others do it, but sometimes it's so painfully obvious that you might as well not reply at all.

The short of it is, that when I accuse someone of White Knighting, it's a last ditch effort to tell the other person that I think they're unreasonable and unwilling to see things from any other perspective than a heavily biased and influenced one, without the ability to distance themselves or apply any objectivity to the discussion.

See, the problem I have is how you could even tell someone is white knighting on an online forum. Could you give me a detailed example of the behaviour (with names omitted) and how you knew the person was being a white knight?

In regards to b): Since most people know examples of sexism, it's not that ethereal.

I meant the topics are ethereal. There really isn't someone to impress when someone is discussing weather or not females are discriminated against in the gaming community.

For example, you set up the question(how an anyone be justified) after stating your interpretation, which indicates you're unwilling to some degree, to change your opinion and that you're more interested in telling others what's right.
How can I possibly know that? Because I would do the same if I didn't have more perspective on an issue(or be aware that there was any other to be had) and I would most definitely assume that I was right.

If that were true I would've been more declarative in my title and OP. You made an assumption about my motivations based on your own history and not mine. That's a problem IMO. To illustrate my point, it'd be like if you were once mugged by a black person and thus assumed all future black people you encountered want to mug you as a result. That's also the problem I see with declarations of white knighting on the internet--you arn't taking account the personal history of the poster to determine their motivation, but rather telling them what it is based on just your own past history. Context is thus completely absent.

 

[renegade7]

It happens because some men just don't want to hear that dating and love can be unfair and unpleasant at times, regardless of how good you are or how hard you try, and it's more comfortable to think that, instead of the world just not always being nice, the bad things that happen to them are actually the result of a few malcontents who wish to "friendzone" them.

Telling them that this is at worst sexist and irrational and at best that it's a little unfair to accuse someone of ill intent simply for rejecting them is not what these guys want to hear, so they naturally assume that you too are part of the friendzone feminazi plot, or that being nice is always an attempt to get female attention (psychological projection).

It's not to be confused with "Nice Guy (TM)", a person who thinks they are entitled to a woman's affections because they are "nice", since Nice Guy is a label these men give to themselves, whereas White Knight is something Nice Guys give to other men in response to perceived Nice-Guyyery (they obviously don't notice it in themselves).

 

[Loonyyy]

*snip*

Ah, concessions at last, I appreciate it. I could have done without the insults and sarcasm, but it does seem that a tiny part of you is willing to reflect. I will gladly receive your badge of idiocy, should we ever discuss in a gender debate, seeing as I now understand some of your motivation and antipathetic nature.

I thank you for the debate.

Dude, stop white knighting for the term white knight.

Don't you know that it doesn't care/won't sleep with you/you just need to take the red pill. I say this with no knowledge of your motives, but instantly assume you don't have a nuanced and intricate point because I have a dismissive attack on hand which uses culturally ingrained misogyny to shame views I disagree with. And any attempt to criticise my use of this will be met with me questioning you as if you have assumed my motives off my two word dismissal, leading to an infinite recursion of silliness whilst I feign an attitude of willingness to debate, and try to pretend I'm not being an ass, and by pretending at a knowledge of psychology, and concern trolling that I am trying to help you, and those you defend, and the ideas you express, by maintaining an unjust status quo, because my two words sum up a totallity of sociology, and psychology, because I am really that smart.

Spoiler

Yes. This is sarcasm.