Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

"White Knighting"

In business terms, it's a 'friendly investor' who makes sweet deals with other companies and puts a stop to more hostile companies' advances on 'victim' companies.
In people terms, it seems like it indicates a male (usually online?) who defends women under false chivalry in hopes of getting laid.
In BCB terms, it is apparently synonymous with Abbey.

What I want to know is, what exactly is "white knighting," both online and irl. Addionally, what causes people do do this? The rationale behind it? Why it's so frowned upon? Are there similar acts that aren't considered "white knighting," and as such, what makes them different and why might they be acceptable?
There's clearly something different between "white knighting" and being chivalrous, but I'm confused as to what that fine line is.

I suppose if you also have opinions on "white knighting," or have had brushes with people who tend to act as such, you can voice them here.

Why is it frowned upon? Uh, you don't find a male defending a female solely because he wants her pussy (not because he cares, or because he's interested, or anything like that, but instead wants to get laid or get her as a girl) shallow?

This is the same type of shit that makes self-proclaimed 'Nice guys' so fucking shitty. Tip: You're not nice if you do something just to get into that girl's pants. The same applies here. You're not actually part of the argument and you don't actually care, you just want to bang the girl and so you're getting involved and slowing things down even further.

It's shallow and pathetic.

Online, it's basically trying to diffuse a problem/argument/situation Klaus. Jumping to the defence of those who need it. "The good person fighting the bad person for a just cause"

Of course, the white knight also jumps to help those who don't need it, sticks his nose in problems he not wanted it, and can get a situation completely wrong and looks like an ass for trying to be nice, where he never needed to do anything in the first place.

There's a time and a place for everything, white knight included.

Just a note: My interpretation of a white knight online has nothing to do with getting in another pair of pants.

This post has been edited by Pants: 25 March 2012 - 09:42 PM

You've basically summed it up there. "White Knighting", both online and IRL, refers to a person, usually male, defending another, usually female, in the hopes of winning her over. It's generally contemptible because the people who do it are the people who A. Can't take jokes and B. Have no other way of getting pussy, although the people who are contemptious towards it are generally those on the opposing side. If you're referring to the whole Basketcase scenario, then it refers to whoever it was that stuck up for her sticking up for her not because they think that the aggressor is wrong, but because they want to become closer to her.
Chivalry is quite different; it's the act of having respect to begin with, rather than just protecting someone from a lack of said respect, and as such is held in higher regard.

Anyone who opposed authority. At least in my opinion.

Oh, I wasn't trying to refer to some scenario, it just popped into my head and I always wanted to know.
Yes Susan, sexual ulterior motives are clearly contemptible, I do know that.
EDIT: Some of these questions I know were rhetorical, but had to be asked anyway.
So some white knights know that they're doing this to get close to the girl. Is it possible for someone to not realize that they're white knighting? Or then would it not be a case of it at all?

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 25 March 2012 - 09:48 PM

I've been called out for White Knighting before, and that was just because I stated my opinion on a random subject, and later went on to defend both my own arguments and those of the people that agreed with me. Well, to put it simple.
I never knew about the other kind of it.

If someone was doing it without realising the consequences or even without any ulterior motive, then that would be chivalry or just sense rather than white-knighting.

People who are white knighting know they're doing it, Klaus, even if they aren't familiar with the term by name. When you do something for sex, you know you do it for sex. Likewise, when you do it because the person is losing an argument or to protect a person you know you're doing it for that reason.

The second scenario isn't necessarily bad if the person needs the help and doesn't deserve what they're catching; however, doing it with little to no knowledge of the circumstances that led to the situation is bad, because you aren't fully aware of the argument's nature then you are probably just throwing fuel onto the fire.

I find that it has been used when a girl happens to be involved with the entire disagreement, then the call of White Knighting is let out even when there is no ulterior motive and the person is just defending their opinion.
I would also say I have seen it used with out reason to try to devalue others sides.

Just to play Devil's advocate, why would someone do nice things if it wouldn't benefit them in some way? Also, all humans have sex drive. Isn't it better to sate it through kindness, even if veiled, than through aggression?

And yes, there's always the case of mistaken application of the term.

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 25 March 2012 - 10:17 PM

Dr. Klaus, on 25 March 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

I would say that it could be that the person agrees with the person who just so happens to be female, and so is in fact arguing a point and not doing so to be nice.

Also I am not taking about mistaken application, but more so the use to devalue a side. Like an ad hominem attack in an argument.

Dr. Klaus, on 25 March 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

Because being nice is rewarding. Seeing someone with a smile, or giving a thank you is worth it. Doesn't mean I let people walk over me, but I don't need to be a jackass/bang everyone to get something out of every situation.

This post has been edited by Pants: 25 March 2012 - 10:21 PM

(to Nix) Ah I see.

To the first statement, I would agree:

There's always the case where the male actually does share interests with the female, and defends the girl not because she has a vagina, but because he has similar views.
What if the goal isn't sex, necessarily, but some other form of companionship? For example, if the guy likes the girl for her personality?

(to Pants) Being completely selfless isn't quite possible then, is it? Selflessness as a route to attaining personal happiness is sort of selfish, no?

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 25 March 2012 - 10:27 PM

Pants, on 25 March 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

I respectfully disagree

This post has been edited by Meowth: 25 March 2012 - 10:26 PM

Dr. Klaus, on 25 March 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Kind of roundabout. Anything you do is for yourself in theory (I do this to attempt to accomplish that result that I wanted).

Devil's advocate can be is pretty roundabout.

So what I think I can take from this is that siding with someone because of who they are, not what they are, is acceptable.

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 25 March 2012 - 10:31 PM

Dr. Klaus, on 25 March 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Morally more appreciable, but in the case of arguments there is little to differ someone who does something for the sake of companionship from those who do it for sex. The outcome (arguing for the pure reason that you are defending a girl) is exactly the same.

And with that, I can honestly say that I am a bit of a white knight. Morally, my reasons are more justifiable (I am not doing it for companionship nor sex, just to get on her good side and avoid being yelled at :<), but in the end, there are some times where I am on baskey's side simply because she is my girlfriend. When I am vehemently opposed to her position on something, hell no I am not going to white knight for her, but I have a tendency to lean towards her simply because she is my girlfriend.

This post has been edited by Rex: 25 March 2012 - 10:34 PM

However now that I think about it, it doesn't even really matter if they are white knighting or not. Isn't their argument still applicable? Maybe their morals are questionable but their logic is not, right?

There are surely degrees to it. That's part of what compromise and alliances are all about. People who agree to help each other out because they share similar, but not always identical ideas.

But when you bring up your girlfriend, in that situation you are already together. If you both defend each other for a common goal, and the allegiance isn't simply one-sided, then I'd find it hard to call "white knighting."

EDIT: and yeah, Nik. That brings up a very important issue, and not just with defense of other people:

Is it right for someone to do the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons?
(this discussion is turning very broad very fast... )

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 25 March 2012 - 10:37 PM

Not necessarily, Nik. Most of the White Knights I've seen miss the point of the argument completely and do nothing more but fuck things up more than they already are. It's actually nearly impossible for a person who's intelligently and coherently arguing a point to be a White Knight, because when you know the situation it's that much harder to argue against the side you stand on. There are people who still do it, of course, but all it does is discredit them in any future arguments (devil's advocate arguments aside, of course).

So if you're not being a horny, nosy, blundering prick, you're relatively okay? Seems legit.

And then of course one has to be careful not to play Devil's advocate too often. It gets annoying, amongst other things.

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 25 March 2012 - 10:44 PM

Nik, on 25 March 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

I'll use what Carch said as a jumping off point: people who white knight tend to have shaky arguments--mainly because they are being adverse just to get some. So white knighting carries with it the label of "illogical" due to the individuals who tend to white knight.

A good argument is a good argument. That I can accept. But when people are being illogical, that's bad; when people are being illogical and doing it just to get some, that's worse.

I can respect defending people if they're getting beat up and their points have merit or they're getting attacked for no reason, but white knighting is a special ("speshul," actually) kind of defending that tends just to muddle up an argument with confusing natter for a purpose that is so irritating that it hurts.

I don't know if it's the same thing that I tend to agree with Toffee often--as far as I know, it's not because she's my girlfriend, but generally just that I tend to find her points reasonable. So I'd support her in that endeavor if what I had was 1) a new contribution and/or 2) people weren't getting what she said because she was saying it a certain way. I personally don't consider that white knighting, because I'd be supporting because I agree, not because I "want some."

But yeah, it all comes down to what white knighting is. But personally I feel a picture I've seen sums it up quite well. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to use pictures here to prove a point so I'll just say it was a tally: "Number of girls on the internet I've defended: [35 or so]. Number of times I've gotten laid by said girls: 0."

The true white knight in shining armor fights for the women not for getting laid but for upholding honor and chivalry!

In the stories anyway. Noawadays defending people is cool and all but chivalry is kind of dead.

White knighting is specifically about defending someone not because you think they are right but because you want to impress the person you are defending. It does not necessarily have to be male-on-female (though it often is), and it does not need to be romantic in nature (though it sometimes is).

Examples of this include:

Guys trying to impress girls by arguing for them/defending their actions/ect.
Girls trying to impress guys the same way
Girls/guys supporting other girls/guys to try and become friends with them
Defending some company/organization/artist to make them feel grateful to you

The general theme is that you have an ulterior motive and you don't necessarily feel that their actions are correct (being neutral or opposed otherwise) OR you are only leaping in in this specific instance rather than in general (so you let it pass when it happens to guys, but leap on it when it is a girl you want to impress).

I think another aspect of white knighting is when it then becomes your argument, like you become the mouth piece for the person and it seems you consistently do that.

Like if you are debating with someone and can predictably expect their friend to show up and make it about them, you got a pretty full time white knight on your hands.

There's a difference between sticking up for your friends (ex smash defending Starwatcher) and just being ready to make it about yourself and butting in.

^ Yeah, that was the one I was talking about! I just didn't know if I was allowed to post a picture or not...

People generally get called out for "white knighting" when other people are jelly of them for doing it. Some people are genuinely just nice, or happen to agree with others when most people are against them
Basically "white knighting" has come to have negativity associated with it cause generally it's annoying, but too often people just get butthurt and call you for it anyway, even if you're just being yourself and not butting into an argument or anything.

Also, are mods only allowed to post pics or something, Lux? :S

This post has been edited by Onitsuka: 26 March 2012 - 11:19 PM

Onitsuka, on 26 March 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

A whole new group of rules was just put on the forum and it has some people walking on tip toe for fear of breaking one, that is most likely why Lux was worried about posting a picture.

Oh, I see, are they really that bad...?

Onitsuka, on 26 March 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

You can take a look for yourself on the rule page, but any opinion of mine would be just that, my opinion.

Now this is getting a bit off topic so I would suggest we say something about white knighting or wait for someone else to do so, sounds good Onitsuka?

Yeah I just looked, cool.

Back to white knighting then... the topic, not.. doing it.

Generally I have no problem with it really, it just means someone puts themself in the firing line for a load of crap as well as the person who was originally there, it's their issue, not mine. Plus you can just ignore the fuckers.

Oh haha, you just made me think of a really funny and relatively common scenario:

Some guy is white-knighting. The girl he's defending doesn't immediately see his ulterior motives (getting into her pants), so it appears that she's beginning to take a liking to him.
(Uh-oh!)
But HERE'S the killer: some third-party fellow, who in his mind can't let innocence succumb to corruption, decides to intervene and expose the white-knight for who he is, inadvertently assuming the role of a second white-knight.
What a mess.

Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 27 March 2012 - 04:02 PM

Is the second one trying get into her pants? I mean will it come down to a "He is totally just trying to have sex with you milady" "No way, you are trying to have sex with the lady!" etc, etc.

A white knight implies the desire to protect the person in an argument though, the second person is just making it clear the original white knight has an ulterior motive other than just participating in a debate. If the original person is likely to not have gotten involved if it wasn't for the girl, then they are more likely to be a white knight. The second person is just pointing it out. They're not really defending the girl, they're just saying, unless it becomes a "how dare you manipulate the damsel!!!" but who on earth would say that

Sometimes I can't help but "White Knight" but I try to only do it when it's a 1v100 situation. I would just like to see a fair argument, of course if the person I would "White Knight" for is wrong then I would do my best to set the person straight in a very kind way. I mean no one should get yelled at for being wrong, even if they don't admit it at first they will let it go eventually I guess. I don't honestly see the big problem in "White Knighting" as long as it's not retarded, which I sorta am some of the time.

However I would probably say something like "How dare you manipulate the damsel" also there is "I shall save you m'lady hide behind me whilst I hold off the internet brigands and when the time is right run and I will take the ire" Yeah I do that kind of shit, and hey I don't even expect sex out of it, if I did then I would be about 300 times more of a loser I am now.

That's pretty lame of you to do and implies person can't defend themselves, though. You're not making the person look any better by trying to hold things off and "take the ire" while the person runs away (Which shouldn't be the point, if there's a debate they can just give up on their own or hold their own ground or come to an agreement), it's not your problem and you shouldn't butt your nose in just because you have a soft spot for the female persuasion.

The one other problem with whiteknights is that they make the person they're defending look like sacred cows that depend on the suck ups, why else do people hate a lot of internet superstar girls on DA? Because you can't call them out about something they might be doing wrong without having their fanbase get in your face about it. So it just leaves the person up in a pedestal that shouldn't really be there.

Though I have seen instances where the person knows people are whiteknighting and order them to stop, which is pretty nice to do. (I know in the past when a person was clearly trying to agitate in the page comments, me having to stop a tirade of people getting all UR JUST JEALOUS GRR and going overboard, it gives you a pretty negative image as a person hiding behind fans, so I for one try to get people to back off from those who shouldn't even be paid mind to in the first place) It's just so easy to get muddled up in nonsense just because you want to impress the person and be chummy with them, but it's kind of a shallow move to do. You should defend a person because you agree with their position, regardless of gender and popularity. Because then you just become known as "That guy that is just defending her because she's a girl" so nobody will take you seriously from then on.

Not everyone can defend themselves as well as other people, though. And despite what that does to their image, don't you think it is only fair that there points in a discussion aren't hindered by their trouble communicating them properly?

That's why I said you can defend a person if you genuinely agree with them. A whiteknight does it for more superficial reasons.

I can't really do anything else but agree with you on that. (though i'd do it for anyone not just a female) I just though with the whole concept of knight speech i'd go ahead with it.

I know, I usually just wind up looking stupid for trying to defend a usually obvious one sided argument. I just sometimes find I can't help but go with the underdog, especially since once enough people are siding against the person it starts to turn into an attack rather than a discussion. Of course like I said I would not go so far as to agree with them when they are completely wrong, but try and coarse them into giving in.

Though anything after that and I would probably turn into a devil advocate or keeping in pace with the theme a "Black Knight"?.

I dunno, it's just no matter the situation I don't really like seeing someone getting attacked, even if they are wrong.

YOU ONLY AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I'M A GAL!!!!!!!

Do I get sex now?

ask souppy

(I can understand the desire to defend underdogs. I can't say I haven't been in that position before, especially when majority is really passionate about the underdog in question. Like to go for a slightly embarrassing example, I've made accounts to go on the Biggest Loser forum just to defend Chris, who was the winner of one of the seasons, and has an INCREDIBLE hatedom. That in itself is pretty whiteknighty, I think the fervour also counts.

And the thing is I have a kneejerk reaction to agree with the criticism, but there's an underlying desire to defend a person who was hated by everyone including people within the show that I just think they weren't THAT bad. That goes for Big Physique in The Tester. He was a total douche, but it was really infuriating to see the douchiness of other people in the game, and it was apparently justified just because they antagonised HIM? Two douchey antagonisers doesn't make it right. That seems really lame to me, especially since one of the guys against Big Physique was totally white knighting)

So what you're saying is that, there is a chance?

Anyway, the idea of white knighting isn't bad, and doing it isn't bad either, but it's the stupid notion that you're going to get internet fame and respect points for doing it, while is almost never ends that way most think it will, which is stupid (like me) but hey someone has to do it right? Otherwise the world wouldn't be as fun and we wouldn't have a clear person to fuck with.

So in the situation I mentioned, the second interfering character is either just another jealous white-knight, or has no qualms about telling both the first white knight and the damsel that they are complete and total morons.
Haha. "You're being a douche, but you're an idiot for believing him." Which obviously puts the accuser on a pedestal. So nobody really wins either.

Going with the theme of defending underdogs, I share similar views. If the attacking group is wrong in their assault, then it's alright to put up a defense. If the attacking group is right in principle, however, both parties are at fault. The underdog must be reasonably set straight, but the attacking party should be reprimanded for choosing to go about so in a violent manner.
Problem is, as soon as a large enough group gets together, it's hard to avoid the group turning violent against any disagreeing party. The whole mob mentality, the rush of having a mass of people supporting your views, holds the power to turn even the most resolute group into an unruly pack of wild dogs. This of course leads to the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" idiom. One cannot correct an error through other errors. I.e., one cannot correct someone by beating their skulls.

SOMETIMES, the case may be that both parties are entirely wrong, in which case you should just GTFO and leave the warring tribes be. (cough cough zealots cough cough)

Anyone hear of what happened to ChelseaCatGirl on DeviantART? Long story short, it ended badly, despite my best efforts.

Luigifan, on 16 April 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

No. Should we have done? Was it on national TV? Were there medals awarded?

Nope, was just some random bitch who cant draw being a bitch

Lemme guess -- She was a Sonic fangirl.

eughhhhhhh