FA+
Shop
Meta-Knighting
12 years ago
An argument in defence of so-called "White Knights"...
When did being a "white knight" suddenly become a bad thing? Seriously, I think that this is a question that needs to be addressed. Somewhere along the line, the collective culture of the internet seems to have adopted this idea that arguing a position that you feel morally aligned with is wrong. Personally, I find the notion ridiculous. The ability to stand for what one believes in is arguably the most laudable trait that a person can possess, next to the empathy, compassion, and open-mindedness required for choosing worthy causes to support in the first place.
Let's be honest. This antipathy towards the defence of a position doesn't come from any desire for healthy or meaningful discourse. It is the first cry of someone that wishes only to silence opposition. Annoyance at so-called white knights comes about because there are individuals who don't want to be argued against. While I would hesitate to brand everyone who protests "white knighting" a troll, the fact is that such protest is used far too often to silence legitimate criticism. Those who can argue a point through reason seldom have cause to decry someone as a "white knight".
Only very rarely is it used appropriately (or as appropriately as it could be, more so) for someone who defends a position that they do not understand, or are defending for the wrong reasons. Rather, it is a term used by those who wish not to argue with reason, whether out of a lack of patience, ability, or simply from a "herd" mentality wherein the different-thinking outcasts must be branded as such. It is used against people who have valid reasons and arguments behind their position, simply to shut them up. Certainly, there may be times where someone "earns" the label, such as through the stubborn efforts to defend an untenable position, but there are generally more accurate terms to describe these people, such as "stubborn", "confrontational", or "foolish". Shouldn't we be using the proper terms for what's really wrong with people's arguments, and when there's actually something wrong with them, instead of calling people what amounts to "a morally conscious and motivated individual with strong convictions", as though these have somehow ceased to be positive traits?
When did being a "white knight" suddenly become a bad thing? Seriously, I think that this is a question that needs to be addressed. Somewhere along the line, the collective culture of the internet seems to have adopted this idea that arguing a position that you feel morally aligned with is wrong. Personally, I find the notion ridiculous. The ability to stand for what one believes in is arguably the most laudable trait that a person can possess, next to the empathy, compassion, and open-mindedness required for choosing worthy causes to support in the first place.
Let's be honest. This antipathy towards the defence of a position doesn't come from any desire for healthy or meaningful discourse. It is the first cry of someone that wishes only to silence opposition. Annoyance at so-called white knights comes about because there are individuals who don't want to be argued against. While I would hesitate to brand everyone who protests "white knighting" a troll, the fact is that such protest is used far too often to silence legitimate criticism. Those who can argue a point through reason seldom have cause to decry someone as a "white knight".
Only very rarely is it used appropriately (or as appropriately as it could be, more so) for someone who defends a position that they do not understand, or are defending for the wrong reasons. Rather, it is a term used by those who wish not to argue with reason, whether out of a lack of patience, ability, or simply from a "herd" mentality wherein the different-thinking outcasts must be branded as such. It is used against people who have valid reasons and arguments behind their position, simply to shut them up. Certainly, there may be times where someone "earns" the label, such as through the stubborn efforts to defend an untenable position, but there are generally more accurate terms to describe these people, such as "stubborn", "confrontational", or "foolish". Shouldn't we be using the proper terms for what's really wrong with people's arguments, and when there's actually something wrong with them, instead of calling people what amounts to "a morally conscious and motivated individual with strong convictions", as though these have somehow ceased to be positive traits?
