• 120 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by DeShawn2ks (1052 posts) -

@Milkman said:

Whatever, dude. You're just trying to get laid by these RADICAL FEMINISTS.

So instead of a White Knight he is being a Captain Save A Hoe. That is the one I like to use.

#102 Posted by beeftothetaco (421 posts) -

@OfficeGamer said:

I'm relatively new to the site but I've noticed that you really enjoy stirring up these sensationalist topics and expressing your somewhat contrarian opinions. Can't we enjoy this website without dragging Patrick's thing into the forum? Thanks.

Edit: No offense intended by the way.

#103 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4338 posts) -

but chemtrails are real.

#104 Edited by Meowshi (2911 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

@Akyho said:

Alot of people have said "oh a Patrick article on femisms. There he goes white Knighting for his fiance Kate!"

The weird part is that Patrick keeps trying to convince everybody he has a fiancee. Every time someone asks about her, she's "out of town." Why do you keep up the charade, Patrick? We all know "Kat(i?)e" never existed.

My god.

Ronaiah Tuiasosopo got Patrick too!

#105 Posted by LikeaSsur (1510 posts) -

But what if they ARE doing it just so girls notice them? As in, they are actually white knighting. What then?

#106 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@Animasta said:

okay so there's been some 'awesome' anita discussions again and those are always fun, but one thing I am tired of is people calling people white knights, because that's entirely disingenious... for a couple of reasons. Look, I respect people who can make good arguments even if I don't agree with them ( is a pretty good example, I disagree with him on most things but I enjoy his arguments) and I think most smart, or even 'smart', people do too (of which I assume Anita thinks herself as smart; whether she is or not is not a discussion I want to have, so shut up). And, if you're really that fucking interested in reading a goddamn feminism debate thread in a video game forum, I assume you are too! So the white knight accusation is completely inaccurate from that point, and most people who enjoy my statements (and follow me because of this) that other people might construe as white knight exemplary are people who make the same arguments, and they aren't all women, though that's because there aren't a whole lot of women here.

The second part though, is the inherent disbelief that "you couldn't think that, you're only doing it because you want a girl/girls to notice you" or fucking whatever. People believe all sorts of crazy bullshit; people believe in goddamn chem trails! i don't know why your disbelief is such that a guy couldn't POSSIBLY be some radical feminist without doing it because he wants some pussy or even... e-pussy (I don't know the word for online sex)? Like maybe comparing radical or even hardcore feminism to chem trails is a little insensitive but it gets my point across. . Hell, people (it was probably endurancefun) have even called me a white knight for patrick. LIKE COME ON.

I mean Patrick's cute and all but...

:)

but seriously, don't be fucking lazy. Think up some new, more interesting, and more debatable words then that, especially considering that will sort of derail a debate, and debates are cool.

I used white knight recently but I was joking, which is how people SHOULD use it. It's such a ridiculous term if you honestly think about it.

Also I wonder if that term is why Dark Souls doesn't have white knights... just silver.

Ok how about this. are really good report about Anita and her methods and practices.. ESpecially the second part describes perfectly how she reacts to critic or how she handles videos that were just poorly researched and so on.

WE really need to stop paying attention to her.

#107 Posted by byterunner (305 posts) -

Didn't the term come from when dudes would defend cam whores? Like, they would chat with them, maybe skype, and defend the girl when people call them cam whores, and then usually leave the girl when she shows no signs of something more than friendship?

#108 Posted by TruthTellah (8773 posts) -

Of course "white knight" is a misguided, damaging term. It serves no helpful role in respectful debate between adults.

Like many other Internet terms, it is founded in the same schoolyard logic which led to kids saying that a child liked another child simply because they objected to other kids picking on them. In a way, the concept of the "white knight" insult is actually more of a theme in dysfunctional arguments than just a single term. The person's root point is that disagreement on a particular issue that seems obvious to them must be inherently disingenuous, characterizing a basic lack of understanding for differences or opposing viewpoints.

#109 Posted by SSully (4153 posts) -

@FancySoapsMan said:

While I agree, I believe both sides are equally guilty of using the same tactic.

for example, people in the Dead Island statue thread accusing everyone they disagreed with of being misogynists or calling them children/neckbeards/whatever.

This right here. Both are a big reason I try to stay out of that shit, annoying as fuck.

#110 Posted by gamefreak9 (2358 posts) -

Regardless of whether it is bad or good. We have become a very feminized society, there are practically no funnels for manliness in today's culture: We are much more sensitive to seeing real world violence, I hear guys whine when they are touched by insects, we are the paying gender, we open the doors, about 10 times more money is allocated to women's health than men's health, whenever there is someone accused of rape he is assumed guilty by feminists. As an economist I can say that people are trying to pass policies that would make women earn more money per unit of output and attack the very idea of meritocracy. So the way I see it, accusing anyone of being a white knight is merely stating that they have been institutionalized. Heck i've seen statistics on men's time in front of the mirror and taking care of their hair, they are rising. We are moving more and more towards valuing aesthetics, and though its not purely a feminine trait, it is more feminine than masculine.

Personally I only mind it a little, mostly because I come from a country that hasn't been touched by this movement as much.

#111 Posted by Tobiass (150 posts) -

I like it when people compliment my hotness.

Maybe, you're just ugly is all...

#112 Posted by Gahzoo (361 posts) -

It's used when it shouldn't be most of the time, however the truth is that real white knights are just pathetic beta males.

#113 Edited by Brodehouse (9848 posts) -

@chrissedoff said:

You're still making declarative statements that are flat out wrong. Restating your point about feminism being for the advancement of women only doesn't become persuasive as soon as you say, "Trust me, it's a part of history". If you're going to demand that feminism achieve something for men that's as meaningful as women's suffrage was, then that's just stupid. Men already have enjoyed privileged status so I don't think there's any obligation for feminists to spend equal time reminding everyone how important men's rights are too. All the same, it is not uncommon to see feminists argue that the patriarchy also oppresses men in how it tries to codify and enforce a narrow definition of manhood. Your example about women's shelters is totally irrelevant to feminism at best and could be totally spurious for all I know.

Aha. And here we are.

I have stated that feminism is a movement for the advancement of women in society. I have stated that it is not in fact, based in a desire for gender equality, but just the desire for the betterment of women. You have disagreed, and then you have outlined exactly how feminism is not about gender equality, but about the advancement of women. If feminism was about correcting gender equality, how would gender inequality at DV shelters be irrelevant to the aims of feminism?

Also, Patriarchy Theory is a busted theory. Patriarchy Theory holds that society was ordered by men, for the benefit of men, at the expense of women. But that doesn't line up with anything regarding the treatment of men throughout history. It also doesn't line up with anything regarding the treatment of women. I'd prattle on, but I stand on the shoulders of giants, and in this case, they'd be better served without me distilling their words.

Saying that restrictions of women's reproductive rights hasn't succeeded at any point is not just ridiculous, it's fucking ridiculous. State legislatures have been playing all kinds of tricks to try to intimidate and shame women who choose to have abortions (forced ultrasounds, counseling, vaginal probes), have prevented abortions from receiving any federal funding, which places a heavy financial burden onto women seeking abortions, passed all kinds of crazy draconian regulations on abortion clinics and doctors to try to make almost impossible to operate a clinic. Employers have been allowed to exclude birth control from their insurance plans on "religious grounds" even though employees'

I don't know what your concept of shame is, but the idea of an ultrasound somehow shaming someone is a little beyond me. Forced counseling being shame? I would refuse and then ask for my procedure. If that doctor won't help, I would find one who did. That hasn't been my experience, doctors have been rather helpful to me (wasting my time, though, my God) but maybe things in your state are especially fucked and in need of redress. In which case, you will find numerous people ready to defend personal liberty, myself included. Responsible adults can make their own decisions. As for vaginal probes you might have to go into more detail as to what that exactly entails, but I would have a hard time describing medical procedures as 'shaming'. Unnecessary, sure, that can be proven based on medicine and then corrected. 'Shaming'? Maybe I have a little bit more respect for women. I think they're capable of going to a doctor by themselves.

As for health insurance plans, I think 'religious grounds' are completely stupid, but the thing is is that companies actually don't require 'grounds' for what plan they offer. The benefits they offer are the benefits you either agree or disagree to accept upon employment, just like your wage. My benefits were terrible, so I got my own plan. If you want different benefits, you are free to get a different plan, or a different job. This is core, basic personal responsibility here. Compensation is not a unilateral obligation, it's a social contract between employer and employee that is agreed to upon hiring. The type of plan offered by said company is a part of the compensation agreed upon.

health insurance is a form of compensation and employers aren't supposed to have the right to exercise control over what you do with your compensation. If you want to say that women's access to birth control is this privilege that they should be 100% responsible for, that in itself is enforcing an economic inequality limiting how much control women have over their sexuality compared to men, because of the difference in birth control costs and the difference between the consequences of lack of birth control between the two genders.

You're making an argument with a logical snag here.

Wage/Salary + Benefits = Compensation

Use of wage + Use of benefits = Personal choice

You are taking this data and creating this.

Wage/Salary + Benefits + Use of benefits = Compensation

Use of wage = Personal choice

This doesn't hold water. By agreeing to work for said company for said compensation, you are accepting the terms of said contract. How you use your gains is up to you, but what the company offers is not.

An economic inequality does not play out here, because birth control is not a government mandate (such as car insurance), and whether or not someone chooses to purchase and use birth control is their own decision. If economically you decide you can't afford the birth control you prefer, it's as simple as that. It is a decision you have made no different then deciding you can't afford the food you prefer. Keep in mind, women are not incapable of purchasing condoms. Men are not incapable of purchasing the pill. Sex is not a single player game. If you can't afford the pill, buy condoms and refuse consent until your partner wears a condom. If you don't like condoms, buy the pill. Or a diaphragm. Or just sit there diddling each other. The government has no business in the bedroom decisions of consenting adults.

You and your articles are cherry-picking stats and making the same old argument about different career paths and so on even though everyone already acknowledges that men often choose higher-paying careers. In apples to apples comparisons, women still make less than men for doing similar jobs. Even your HuffPo article acknowledges that there is a significant (the article acts like it's not significant, but it is) difference in earnings between the narrowly-selected-to-support-the-argument group of young college graduate professionals. It's actually totally fine to deny that that income inequality is a pressing as long as it's accompanied with support for legislation ensuring that equal pay, if only to humor those silly people among us who have this crazy idea that there's gender pay discrimination.

Me and my articles provide evidence for our assertions. Foul articles and I. My Huffpost article does mention there are difference in earnings, about 7%. My BI article mentions there are differences in hours, about 15%. Dare I say, these may be connected. You have presented ... nothing, besides rhetoric. Women make less money for the same work... because you said it. Despite how this would completely call into doubt the entire practicality of male employment. I do find it interesting you believe the American Association for University Women would cherry pick statistics from the largest possible sample size and the widest array of data outliers. Perhaps you think that the AAUW cannot be trusted, and the data would be better researched by the US Department of Labor.

"This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

The US Department of Labor disagrees with the wage gap. Any economist with the ability to notice that 80<100 disagrees. I suppose they could be just installed by partiarchal government men who were installed by partiarchal voters... ignoring that women actually vote in higher proportions and higher numbers, and make up 57% of the US electorate. But no, women make less money then their male counterparts because... you said so.

As for support for future legislation, we already have that. It's called the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Everything that this 'legislation' could possibly be would either a) BE the Equal Protection Clause, or b) violate it completely. I don't support the passing of any law that discriminates (or even uses a reference) based on gender, race, orientation, or anything else. I do support people having the freedom to make their own choices.

Dude, I get it. You think you're really super well read. That's why you can't get this right. You're a know-it-all and you think you're too smart to allow yourself to be introduced to an idea that you don't already have. Supporting the rights of women and being a feminist are the same thing. We all support the aims of feminism, even if we disagree on the particulars. General opposition to feminism is the same thing as misogyny. Those last three sentences are all I really care about you taking away from this argument.

Really now, you should have placed the personal attacks at the beginning so I would know to ignore you. I avoid personal attacks and appeals to the speaker, because they're fallacies, and they only look bad on those who launch them.

Supporting the rights of women and being a feminist are not actually the same thing, you see that's why the words are different. Supporting the legal rights of women under the law, and making sure they are commensurate with men's rights, is called equality, or egalitarianism. By it's own definition it works in reverse, because it holds that supporting the legal rights of men, and having them equal with women, is the exact same proposition as the first. 'We all support the aims of feminism', no you see, I support the aims of equality and egalitarianism. When the aims of feminism conflict with equality, I will no longer stand with femnism. When they align with equality, I will stand with them. But I support equality, not the betterment of women. I support the betterment of all people through science and technology, because that aligns itself with equality. General opposition to feminism is not the same thing as misogyny, this is about as simple as a dictionary reference. You can dissemble and levy personal attacks and imputations of malice, and that's fine, I have a thick skin, it takes a lot to victimize me. But I'm an egalitarian. And egalitarianism means equality.

Have a great day!

#114 Posted by Jams (2960 posts) -

@chrissedoff

do you like apples?

#115 Posted by mrfluke (5130 posts) -

@SSully said:

@FancySoapsMan said:

While I agree, I believe both sides are equally guilty of using the same tactic.

for example, people in the Dead Island statue thread accusing everyone they disagreed with of being misogynists or calling them children/neckbeards/whatever.

This right here. Both are a big reason I try to stay out of that shit, annoying as fuck.

this, both sides definitely are guilty of doing the same thing,

#116 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

If you want chicks all you gotta do is show em the D.

#117 Posted by Levio (1784 posts) -

@mrfluke said:

@SSully said:

@FancySoapsMan said:

While I agree, I believe both sides are equally guilty of using the same tactic.

for example, people in the Dead Island statue thread accusing everyone they disagreed with of being misogynists or calling them children/neckbeards/whatever.

This right here. Both are a big reason I try to stay out of that shit, annoying as fuck.

this, both sides definitely are guilty of doing the same thing,

Your ancestors called it misogynism, but you call it white knighting. I come from a land where they are one and the same.

#118 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

If you want chicks all you gotta do is show em the D.

Damn straight.
#119 Posted by Brendan (7753 posts) -

God, I hate the term "white knight" mostly because it's a lazy smokescreen defense used by assholes attacking people. It's a sweeping and meaningless generalization used to deflect level-headed thinking.

It's right up there with "Am I the only one in the world?..." for me.

#120 Posted by prakun (3 posts) -

I'm really tired of seeing women being treated like little babies in need of support by some kind of neo-twitter feminism or some random guy on the web.

I'm able to fend off assholes by myself, thanks.

Also, Anita is a major factor in the effort to make women think they are nothing more than poor little victims of society.

She thinks she's empowering women but with her medieval views on sexuality and body language, I might as well put on a burka.

"Raising awareness" never, ever does anything, besides making someone rich. She thinks she's the authority and representative on feminist views but she never proved her abilities.

We're in a state where companies have realised that attacking sexism sells, so they are creating this superficial war on sexism that actually does nothing besides flashing a couple of angry posts on twitter. Females get convinced that they need protection from 3rd parties and sexism still reigns supreme.

And let me say, I at least, do not need protection by sexual portrayals in video games. First of all, I have no problem with it and secondly, if I had, I could as well not buy their products.

This rampant effort to censor everything that offends someone is truly a hit to the artistic integrity of video games.

Not to mention this results in males who had no sexist values get hostile with women since they think that all of us are censoring nuts like Sarkeesian. It only helps to further divide the two sexes.

The thing that got me going with Anita was mainly the fact that she's hiding behind some sexist attacks to ignore everyone with real arguments against her and gather even more money from people who are ignorant to what is really happening.

This is my problem with "white-knights".

Women can hold their own weight. We'll be fine.

I'd be more worried about you.

#121 Posted by evanbower (1210 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@_Chad: exactly, who would want to be a white knight? you'd just get dirt all over your armor and it'd be a bad scene all around

"Agh! I just washed this!"