As I understand it, you can fully believe the above and also use the term “white knight” derisively. The key phrase in the definition that @DavidNRockies provided is: “usually without thinking things through as to why the person is being attacked.”
When I see accusations of white-knighting on this board, I take them to mean “Poster A is defending Poster B without taking into account that the criticism being made of Poster B is legitimate, they just have a knee-jerk reaction to any negative comments about Poster B.”
That being the case, I don’t see what’s wrong with the term. We can argue whether a particular situation constitute white-knighting or not - some may think that Poster A is noble, others may think Poster A lacks insight into why Poster B is being criticized. But that kind of disagreement doesn’t preclude use of the term.
Does that make sense to you, or have I missed something in the point you are trying to make?
Though it can sometimes be hard to separate sympathy from empathy, that wasn’t really my point. No, in general I don’t think health problems or other personal issues not immediately relevant to the conversation should normally affect how we treat a poster.
The crucial point I was making is that Beck has a lifelong history of difficulty in verbal communication, sometimes even resorting to ASL, and I suspect that’s part of the reason that she finds the SDMB a welcome haven from that difficult world. There’s certainly no doubt, based on prior conversations, that she greatly values this place and considers some of us her virtual friends.
I think this is something to keep in mind whenever someone takes offense at something she has said. The fact that she posts with good intentions and is not willfully troublesome in a place that she values should perhaps give us pause before we rush in with vitriolic condemnations about something that we may have misinterpreted.
So my general view here is to say that when responding to a poster or complaining about them, knowing that they have a history of posting in good faith and not being willfully troublesome should be a mitigating factor in how we respond to them.
Any reasonable person would agree with that. However, having good intentions doesn’t make anyone (not just Beck, all posters) exempt from legitimate criticism. Should that criticism be presented helpfully and without crudity and nastiness? Sure.
I think most of us would point to her history as a reason why we find certain things that she posts to be objectionable. Your view of the context of her posting history is verrrry different than my view. Or, I take it, from the view that others have of her posting history.
My health makes this place a touch more important to me than it otherwise ought to be. AGAIN: don’t hold me to a different standard because of that. Judge/moderate me based on my actions.
Did my dog die on a Monday, and – on that same day – I was out of line with somebody? I’ll take a mulligan for that, as I would give that mulligan to pretty much anybody.
But we just go round and round here: her medical issues don’t require a reasonable accommodation here. Neither do mine.
So what really IS the reason for changing the standard for HER?
ETA: I also note the HUGE issue with you entreating all of us to be more understanding of Beck’s limitations (that really don’t apply At. All. here) WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY defending her response to a non-native English speaker who didn’t score 100% on his SDMB English Comp test.
Do you really not see that?
ETA2: the law distinguishes between Murder (or Premeditated Murder), Manslaughter, and Involuntary Manslaughter. It’s usually a matter of intent.
But the harm is real regardless of intent and the laws each and all seek to hold the person accountable.
But you don’t want that to apply here? Illness AND intent should be a universal ‘get out of jail free’ card … in perpetuity?
That was so overblown to be ridiculous, you know the offenderati could have flagged it for a moderator? Maybe they did? But nothing came of it. So it was taken to the pit. Give me a break.
Years ago, a very dear friend finally fished his wish. He was dating a woman who was drop-dead gorgeous and with an unbelievable figure. She was also about 50 shades of awful with a black heart and no compassion. Her endless materialism had her convincing my wonderful buddy to try to profit off the misery of others, where formerly we would seek to reduce that misery.
She was, stereotypically, “rude to the help.” She was annoyed by dogs.
In speaking about her with another, mutual, friend, I said words to the effect of, “Yeah, well. I guess it’s because I’m not sleeping with her.”
White knighting
Fanboys
Confirmation bias
Soft bigotry of low expectations
Tribalism
Cult of personality
Blind spot
It’s all the same.
Whatever the true etiology it is, it goes against any rational and evenly-applied principle in situations like this. I think a whole lot of people have been very upfront about the “not sleeping with her” thing, generally by saying that – while maybe not a fan – nobody has any basic and fundamental dislike of Beck. As I’ve previously said, I was an early supporter, and am STILL NOT a detractor.
I’m just not enthralled.
The lack of objectivity among that cult is really like a flashing neon sign to those of us NOT so enthralled.
I’m (one of) the person/people who @DSeid previously called out for using the term to dismiss someone’s arguments, and he was 100% right. His comparison to “woke” is apt – it can be used to describe something taken beyond the extreme, but it usually just means “I don’t want to argue against the actual point being discussed.” I see “white knight” on the board sometimes used to describe an unthinking defense, but usually “white knight” is just a careless and dismissive attack.
Considering Beck’s biggest defenders of wolfpup and Gatopescado (chela is too stupid to include here), I don’t think either of them are defending her performatively or without considering the criticism. wolfpup has posted very thoughtful reasons for why he defends her. I personally don’t agree with them, and I think both are very biased in their arguments because they like Beck, but it doesn’t make it “white knighting” in the disparaging way described.
If you think they are spouting BS in their defense, call them on that. White knighting accusations are just a lazy way to avoid engagement. And I do think it has an unfortunate overall effect of discouraging people from defending those who might need some allies.
It’s also possible (axiomatically, because it is happening here, if not in every single case) that the term is being used correctly while simultaneously addressing the other person’s arguments thoughtfully, logically, systematically, and comprehensively.
A term like that can be used as shorthand, but – in general – I would agree that it should not be basically a standalone argument.
I get your point, but I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a crappy term in most cases. If you’re using it while simultaneously addressing the other person’s arguments, then why use it in the first place? If you’re addressing their arguments, throwing in “white knight” is at best superfluous.
I have in the past found myself starting to post a defense of someone here, but deleting it because I knew I’d be accused of white knighting on some issue that didn’t directly affect me. And I’ve realized, that’s a shitty way to go through life and it’s not the kind of person I want to be. With the number of times it’s used dismissively here, even the “correct” use of the term still contributes to people keeping quiet rather than being an ally.
Also, if my understanding of how these things are supposed to work, or how they generally work, on the SDMB is incorrect, I’d be grateful if you’d englighten me.
Because, AIUI, you just described exactly how it IS supposed to work.
As I say, to me it may be threadworthy, but on this thread? I find the topic to be well and truly played out.
I also find it to be an insidious distraction that’s likely being cheered on by the fanboys, as – IMHO – was the filibuster thing – quite possibly even concocted by one of the fanboys.
We shouldn’t do the weave on this one. There’s a larger principle here, and it isn’t split infinitives or dangling participles
ETA: but, yeah: “shorthand” should not be the same as rhetorical homeopathy
JFC, man, you seem to be getting really worked up over this trivia, to the point that unfortunately you seem to be misinterpreting a lot of what I said to fit your rapidly developing bias. For example:
Where the hell did I ever say we should change the standards just for her? Please read the last line of my post again, which was also quoted by @CairoCarol. It says the opposite. I was using her as an example to articulate a general principle.
Oh, bloody hell!
I’ve said – at least two or three times, as I recall – that Beck’s criticism there was inappropriate and should not have been made. How is that, in any sane interpretation, “defending” her response?
What I have done is drawn a distinction between language proficiency and the totally different issue of the form and quality of a post. I also acknowledged several times that both my pickiness about grammar (for which I would never criticize a non-native English speaker) and about general form and quality of a post (for which I’ll criticize anybody) are my own personal hot buttons. These deficiencies on a message board are often objectively unimportant (unless they seriously impair readability) but careless posts always bug me. I consider them a marker of laziness. Criticize me for that if you will, but it has nothing to do with Beck.
Thank you, you have put your finger on the core of this issue. “White knighting” as a practice can be good or bad depending on the context, and the term can be used equally well in praise or in derision, again depending on the context.
In my opinion, coming to another poster’s defense in that way is generally presumptuous and unnecessary, especially in the case of this thread, where the “Poster B” in question is perfectly capable of defending herself.
But I appreciate the valiant effort to characterize my emotional state, no matter by what distance it missed the mark.
At the risk of invalidating, minimizing, or even gaslighting, your “hot button issue --” depending on context – it borders on the irrational. It is also readily capable of causing meaningful harm.
And the current context in which you’re attributing your actions to that hot-button, harm is either being caused, defended, facilitated, or some/all of the above.
ETA: try the Steelman Argument. Rather than pick three words from ilansho or snippets of what I post, why not take on the posts and arguments en toto?
What she did was shitty – rude at first, worse given what most of us already knew
Defending her actions in that case – particularly when based on such a narrow but closely-held POV makes little sense
Defending her actions based on her health and speech difficulties is both illogical and sets a poor precedent
This defense of THIS poster does NOT come in isolation. It is a recurring theme
Granting significant grace for transgressions [ETA: based on health or life circumstances] – if not for outright rule violations – makes little to no sense and does NOT, IMHO, improve the overall quality of this MB
Also, so you don’t (continue to) think I’m ignoring one of your primary points or glossing over it or twisting it around …
Saying that you were not in any way, shape, or form defending Beck’s response to ilansho doesn’t really change how forcefully you’re addressing ilansho’s fundamental posting style, spelling, syntax, diction, grammar, etc.
Do you see how those two things are logically inconsistent?
[ANALOGY]“I don’t support calling chela an asshole, but the fact remains that she is an asshole”[/ANALOGY]
[Not me calling her that – me trying to make a salient point]
As the poster who initiated the aside (and appreciates your consideration of why the use of the term annoys me, and @TroutMan’s post) I agree. The point has been made, and the disagreements expressed.
More could be an IMHO thread maybe but not one I’d bother to start. I do reserve the right to mock in the future however!
should never be mentioned in the context of an insult.
