"White Knighting" I don't get it

[Godhead]

White Knights are fools who think that they can best me in combat.

Spoiler: Diabolical Laughter

 

[SKBPinkie]

Lol gender debates on the internet.

Seriously, I've learnt that a message board is not the place for any discussion that is remotely serious. As long as peoples' topics stick to their favorite games, movies, etc. (or in the Escapist's case - least favorite games, movies, etc), we'll be fine.

Keep the more serious discussions for IRL conversations. The internet is no place for stuff like that.

 

[m0ng00se]

to understand white knighting you have to understand both the douchebag mentality (simple) the hyper-beta-male mentality, (behind the spoiler).

Spoiler

the hbm mentality is primarily characterized by a very present, albeit inhibited sexuality. attraction to females is often severely downplayed, and their get-a-girlfriend game plan is "stand around and hope for a girl to randomly take interest in me, drag me around, then make all the moves while i never grow as a person."

girls randomly taking interest in a guy is hardly uncommon, so step 1 usually happens eventually.

the guy then jumps through a bunch of moronic hoops in efforts to appear "gentlemanly." the reason the hoops are moronic isn't because it's bad to be nice to people. there's nothing wrong with being nice to people. the male simply performs a series of ambivalently nice gestures like picking up a girl's tab or whatever, without ever committing to anything that might explicitly state their romantic intentions.

(for some reason explicitly stating anything you want that the girl might not agree with is considered "ungentlemanly" as if two respectable people can't have differing opinions.)

the HBM mentality prohibits that the characteristic niceness be interpreted in any way as a courting maneuver. if a guy is only nice to pretty girls then they aren't actually very nice, right? so it's important that they're just "always like that." which turns them into hyper-gentlemanly doormats everywhere else, which turns them into white knights.

douchebags are just trying to bang chicks and they don't come up online

 

[Robert Marrs]

Lol gender debates on the internet.

Seriously, I've learnt that a message board is not the place for any discussion that is remotely serious. As long as peoples' topics stick to their favorite games, movies, etc. (or in the Escapist's case - least favorite games, movies, etc), we'll be fine.

Keep the more serious discussions for IRL conversations. The internet is no place for stuff like that.

The internet is the perfect place for discussion like that. People can say what they really feel without the possible backlash of saying those things in real life. People can say things that are not politically correct (even if they are factual) without fear of losing their jobs or having family members hate them. Having an anonymous voice in a place that you can discuss things is certainly abused by a lot of people but it is also very therapeutic to be able to discuss things that might otherwise damage your real life. It might not actually achieve anything but its better than not being able to talk about it at all from an honest point of view.

Me being anti-feminist to an extent is something that would automatically get a negative knee-jerk reaction from people in my real life. Its a totally legitimate and reasonable point of view but most people would go to arms against me if I stated that point of view in public. A lot of them would do it just because they don't want to go against the norm and risk being ostracized along with me. That is the beauty of the internet. People can have open and honest discussions without fear of backlash from their peers.

 

[ForumSafari]

As much as the people touting white knight around like a bludgeon to beat all the people who would dare take a woman's side in an argument would like that to be the case for everyone they use it against, it rarely, if ever, is. When people come to the defense of, say, Quinn or Sarkeesian, the people defending them more often than not have legitimate reasons and arguments for defending them. Not saying white knights don't exist, but every time that term is used it's always applied to everyone who has taken a woman's side in an argument, as if the only reason to ever side with a woman was because you want their vagina or because you think they can't defend themselves.

The problem with that is that of course loads of words are used incorrectly, even if a word is misapplied though it's important to go for the actual definition.

Besides mostly I was pointing out that it's a very grave mistake to assume you know what someone means or how they really feel about something. For one thing you can well be wrong, for another it's way too convenient to just assume people mean the meaning that happens to fit your preconception.

Also I don't really follow old Sarko and her hate train because, well, I'm an adult and don't really care but wasn't Quinn the PR manager on the Mighty no. 9 project? If so I saw a lot of anger and some utter stupidity from her part but nothing just because she was a woman.

 

[Erttheking]

Like just about every other idea on the internet, I feel like it was designed for a good purpose, but once again, like with every idea ever, people came along and started abusing it and gave it a bad image and now it's only used incorrectly.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I feel like it was designed for a good purpose

No it wasn't.

It was designed as a dismissive, lazy ad hominem attack, and that's exactly how it has been used. On the other hand, it's one of only a handful of "Guaranteed Badges of Idiocy" you can come across on the internet, as in if you see someone using it in a non-satirical fashion, they are An Idiot. So I guess it's handy in that respect.

 

[Vegosiux]

It was designed as a dismissive, lazy ad hominem attack, and that's exactly how it has been used. On the other hand, it's one of only a handful of "Guaranteed Badges of Idiocy" you can come across on the internet, as in if you see someone using it in a non-satirical fashion, they are An Idiot. So I guess it's handy in that respect.

Wait, if it's always wrong, then why the hell do we have so many complaints about "NiceGuys?"? I mean those "NiceGuys?" are the very definition of "white knighting", expecting romantic reciprocation as a "reward" for whatever "favors" and "devotion" they do for a woman. It's not limited to "defending women in internet debates", it counts for every instance when a guy "takes care of a woman" hoping for romantic reciprocation.

 

[Azure23]

White Knighting comes from the colloquial term White Knight syndrome, which is referring to a personality disorder known as Rescuer's syndrome.

Rescuer's Syndrome can be characterized in many ways, but the most common and widely known is the permutation where the affected feels that their strength, knowledge, charm, whatever is sufficient to compensate for a lack of those qualities in another. Often times the rescuer (or fixer) sacrifices his or her own personal goals in order to benefit the other. This is most common in romantic relationships but can take other forms too.

I was actually diagnosed at thirteen after getting in numerous schoolyard fights (I've always despised bullies) my romantic relationships have been characterized by a desire to help my partner with whatever "baggage" she brought with her. And it was always something, abusive Ex or parents, sexual assault, drug problems, whatever it was I saw a demon to be conquered. Being someone's rock can be a pretty intoxicating thing, having someone you care about literally call you "her knight in shining armor," it was like an addiction.

Of course there was always an ugly side to it as well. If you try to do everything for someone sooner or later you'll stop seeing them as at all capable, which can lead to a really bad relationship dynamic.
When people on the internet use white knight as an insult, that's really the aspect their talking about. That you're somehow suggesting that the person/group/whatver you're defending isn't capable of defending themselves/itself. It's important to note however that people with rescuer's syndrome don't help others out of hope of romantic reward (although they will often privately hope that others see them as noble) and the compulsion is in fact tied to worldview (for example, someone who feels that there is an imbalance in the world's justice will feel compelled to help someone to right that).

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

 

[Madmonk12345]

It was designed as a dismissive, lazy ad hominem attack, and that's exactly how it has been used. On the other hand, it's one of only a handful of "Guaranteed Badges of Idiocy" you can come across on the internet, as in if you see someone using it in a non-satirical fashion, they are An Idiot. So I guess it's handy in that respect.

Wait, if it's always wrong, then why the hell do we have so many complaints about "NiceGuys?"? I mean those "NiceGuys?" are the very definition of "white knighting", expecting romantic reciprocation as a "reward" for whatever "favors" and "devotion" they do for a woman. It's not limited to "defending women in internet debates", it counts for every instance when a guy "takes care of a woman" hoping for romantic reciprocation.

Present use of it is, but not originally. A new term is really necessary for that behavior.

That was the original definition before it was co-opted by MRAS, who used it as a pejorative to describe men who defend women in argument in a form of a childish "No U!" argument. The term by this point is kind of poisoned because that definition is so prevalent, and use of the term for the old definition reinforces the idea that it is acceptable to use for the new definition and gives it weight when its used against that particular group of people. Since MRAs and MRA-likes (ie. people who avoid the MRA label but have enough positions indistinguishable from MRAs) don't tend to listen to women they disagree with by using one disgusting justification or another(eg. perceiving women's complaints as whining, believing that women bring harassment upon themselves because the actions performed against them are so outlandish, etc.), this type of argument dissuades them from leaving their beliefs regardless of who argues against them.

 

[shootthebandit]

Snip

Thats actually pretty interesting. I dont know if this is similar to your condition but I read about a condition called "hero syndrome" while ago [footnote]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_syndrome[/footnote]. People deliberately put themselves (and others) in dangerous situations in order to appear to overcome these situations and be the hero

Back on topic: I know people who "white knight" in real-life and I can see why they do it but its just pointless. I have a particular friend who we affectionately say has "gay best friend syndrome" he always agrees with women and is a bit too friendly (obviously trying to win them over) but every time he just comes across as someone being overly friendly and nothing more. He thinks hes making ground and that girls are interested in him but they just want to be his friend.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's an interesting irony that you're labeling people, who by your perception is labeling others, especially since the term "idiot" is also, as you say, an ad hominem attack that would rarely truly fit anyone.

I'm curious, do you really believe in what you wrote, or are you just making a passing remark with no other value than to encourage people to summarily dismiss the opinions of others?

I have to say, this is a spectacular piece of pedantry. I see you feel you've unrooted a startling example of extreme hypocrisy, and have been driven to immediate action. If it will put your anxieties to rest, I will support my statement. To be an idiot is to act as an idiot would act...to do or say idiotic things. Labeling a stranger a "white knight" over the internet implies deep understanding of that person's motives. Naturally this is impossible. To claim otherwise is to behave like an idiot. The term "White Knight" is an idiot's label, an idiot's weapon. It is idiotic. Those who employ it become, in that moment, idiots.

You don't need a deep understanding of someone's motives or thought process to properly label an idiotic action or idiotic turn of phrase as idiotic. Perhaps you believe otherwise. Perhaps you believe that "idiot" is a dire label, earned only after months or years of relentless idiocy in all situations. I support that an idiot is as an idiot does, and that one can be an idiot in one situation and a perfectly non-idiotic gent in another. It's not a Scarlet Letter you carry for the rest of your life. Folks can just, y'know, stop being idiots. One way they can stop is to not use the term "White Knight" to label people they do not know for the purposes of bludgeoning their argument on an internet forum. That's one way.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I see that you've resorted to indirectly label me. Pedantry implies that I set some significant value to your previous post, I assure you, I do not. Nor am I anxious in any way.

Pendatry is a behavior. If you bicker with me over a semantic point, such as "I see you labeling people who label people", then I think it is within the bounds of civil discourse to suggest you are being pedantic. I hardly think that applies as "indirect labeling", unless you are particularly sensitive to having descriptors of any color attached to your behaviors.

The word "idiot" is primarily a reference to a constant state of a person, rather than a temporary one, at least when it comes to law. It describes a person with diminished capacity, overall, not in the moment. It is in fact, a dire label.

The word "idiot" also has significant casual and colloquial usage, which I assume you are well aware of and are choosing to ignore in the service of sustaining this manufactured outrage. Even a quick peek at the online dictionary shows the informal usage preceding the formal.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot

Although in fairness, Meriam's has the informal usage second:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot

Wikipedia covers the casual usage in the first sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

Is that sufficient sourcing?

Of course, you could apply it in casual conversation where the intent is obvious and not taken as rigidly... But that would imply that you would have to take the term "White Knight" with the same intent, which only deepens the "extreme" hypocrisy that I have apparently unrooted, leaving your initial post wanting.

Again, we discussed this. Idiocy describes a visible behavior. I can make an idiotic comment that can plainly be identified as such. White Knight implies intimate knowledge of motive. For the context of this discussion...the use of "White Knight" in conversations with strangers on the internet...I maintain that you cannot apply it without presumption and prejudice.

Might I suggest that you reconsider labeling any person who uses the term and consider the fact that it might very well apply to some people, despite the frequent misuse, as well as your own label?

Nope, for reasons stated above.

You will note that I do not strictly disagree with you, in that I do find an alarming amount of people inarticulate and unable to apply terms correctly; I merely find your argument to be prejudiced and your explanation fallacious.

Indeed? What fallacy have I indulged in?

Just to be clear, while I fully expect you to continue your argument, my initial question was also in part due to my hopeless nature in seeing people, especially articulate ones, willing to compromise or reevaluate themselves and what they say.

So because I disagree with you on this one point, you feel "hopeless" and are convinced I am incapable of compromise?

 

[Caiphus]

White Knighting is generally used as an ad hominem attack, and not a particularly smart or original one. It didn't really deserve a two page forum thread discussing its usage and/or merits. But it's a sort of almost a public holiday, so why not?

I don't think I've ever seen a reasonable usage of the term. It may be possible in some twilight zone somewhere. Your honour, the prosecution humbly submits that the accused is guilty of White Knighting, based on these pieces of evidence that I will now present to the jury...

But it would probably make you look like less of a fool if you just stayed away from it completely.