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

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
wulf3n said:
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.

Abomination said:
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

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Dijkstra said:
Abomination said:
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

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Abomination said:
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.


Abomination said:
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.


Abomination said:
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

New member
Aug 30, 2012
383
0
0
danon said:
Quadocky said:
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

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
wulf3n said:
Abomination said:
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 said:
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 said:
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

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Abomination said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
correct" is merely what the majority believe it to be. With the language "evolving" to meet the current belief.
You agreed with me

Abomination said:
Semantic Change does take effect over time
case closed.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
...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

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Callate said:
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

New member
Aug 4, 2012
87
0
0
Callate said:
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

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Vegosiux said:
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

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
wulf3n said:
Abomination said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
correct" is merely what the majority believe it to be. With the language "evolving" to meet the current belief.
You agreed with me

Abomination said:
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

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Dijkstra said:
Abomination said:
Dijkstra said:
Abomination said:
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

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Abomination said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

ilexuki

New member
Apr 14, 2012
15
0
0
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.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
wulf3n said:
Abomination said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
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.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Abomination said:
You keep falling back on the "incorrect" defence, but I never said your definition was incorrect only different.

Abomination said:
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 said:
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.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
wulf3n said:
Abomination said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
TopazFusion said:
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.
 

kailus13

Soon
Mar 3, 2013
4,568
0
0
TopazFusion said:
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.