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

[Abomination]

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.

 

[Tranquility]

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.

 

[Dascylus]

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.

 

[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.

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

This is called Semantic Change [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change]

 

[00slash00]

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

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

 

[Abomination]

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]

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.

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

This is called Semantic Change [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

 

[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.

 

[wulf3n]

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[wulf3n]

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

You agreed with me

Semantic Change does take effect over time

case closed.

 

[Callate]

...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.

 

[Vegosiux]

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?

 

[Tranquility]

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.

 

[Callate]

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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

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

You agreed with me

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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[wulf3n]

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.

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,

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?

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.

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 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fluid] how I used it merely indicates "subject to change or movement" and has nothing to do with frequency or time.