Is there a word/ expression for this type of person?

[Jebus]

Is there a word or expression for a person who vehemently defends a group of people from which the person is not a member him/herself, while that person's motivation for doing so might seem dubious.

Lately I have seen much of this behavior. It is usually a "self-appointed spokesperson for the weak and oppressed" who knows that what s/he is saying will be applauded by the majority. Often, the person will write off any counterarguments as bigotry.

For example, Ben Affleck, who otherwise seems like an intelligent man, came across as such a person in the Bill Maher/ Sam Harris conversation about Muslims.

[J-Park]

For example, Ben Stiller, who otherwise seems like an intelligent man, came across as such a person in the Bill Maher/ Sam Harris conversation about Muslims.

You mean Ben Affleck?

[Jebus]

[quote="JYou mean Ben Affleck?[/quote]

lol. Change has been made

[brimstoneSalad]

Diplomatic.
Optimistic.
Reasonable.

There are plenty of words available for people who choose to see the best in others, or potential for agreement and commonality, while some can only be critical and fearful.

I don't think Ben Affleck and Sam Harris really disagreed on any points of fact there; it was a disagreement of semantics and rhetoric. How do you define a group? Or do you let people define themselves?

The question in my mind is: "What is more useful?"

Is it useful to alienate the progressives and reformers in Islam as not being true Muslims, and support the extremists in their claim to following the one True Islam™?
Or is it more useful to choose to see Islam as having great potential for peace, and favor those reformers as the legitimate torchbearers of True Islam™ and the extremists as following a false and corrupted faith?

In cases of things that have anything to do with actual reality, what's more useful is typically going to be what's more accurate.

But it's pretty much pointless to ask what's more accurate in terms of theology, because none of it makes any sense anyway. If the scripture is full of contradictions, then there IS no right interpretation, because any way you look at it, it's all logically incoherent. It's just as accurate to interpret Mormons as the true Muslims here. Or Pastafarians. Or Scientologists.

Square Circle.

Tell me, is it more of a squarish-circle, or a circular-square?

Neither. It's f*cking incoherent is what it is.

I can't speak for Ben Affleck, or assume he's smart enough to understand that (he may be, I don't know much of anything about him other than he's an actor), but Sam Harris should be.

Words have power, and right now, despite theism having no legitimacy at all, Sam is granting that phantom legitimacy to the extremists through the interpretation of what he's saying. Ben is denying them that.

Neither of them are technically wrong in what they're saying, except for where they assume theism has enough coherency to bestow correctness on anybody, but one of them may be morally wrong in that the consequences of what he's saying and how people respond to it are more harmful than helpful. Only time will tell on that point, though.

[Jebus]

Diplomatic.
Optimistic.
Reasonable.

There are plenty of words available for people who choose to see the best in others, or potential for agreement and commonality, while some can only be critical and fearful.

Perhaps I should have done a better job describing the type of person to which I was looking for a term. The person you are describing above is an unselfish person, looking out for the interests of others. The person I was hoping to depict is one who takes on the interest of an outside group solely for personal reasons.

I used Ben Affleck as an example as I thought a great majority in this community saw Affleck as a person who chose to ignore the truth, and instead take a position that he thought would sell more movie tickets, or improve the possibility of a successful career in politics. All this at the cost of a person who often says what he thinks is true, even though he knows that his comments will not be favorably heard by the masses.

I realize I made a false assumption and should have chosen a better example.

[brimstoneSalad]

The person I was hoping to depict is one who takes on the interest of an outside group solely for personal reasons.

I used Ben Affleck as an example as I thought a great majority in this community saw Affleck as a person who chose to ignore the truth, and instead take a position that he thought would sell more movie tickets, or improve the possibility of a successful career in politics. All this at the cost of a person who often says what he thinks is true, even though he knows that his comments will not be favorably heard by the masses.

I realize I made a false assumption and should have chosen a better example.

Oh. Yes, well for me, I took Affleck as sincere, and he also seemed to take the statistical facts Harris brought to the table to heart. I think he was just misinformed about Harris' position before that meeting.

And Maher stoked the fire by being a clown as usual (that's his job, after all).

What you're looking for is a dishonest criminal defense attorney, or a hypocritical politician.

In politics, what you're talking about is called pandering. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering_(politics)
That's only when it's dishonest, of course.

The thing is, when people represent ideas insincerely like that, I think we narrow in on why- like somebody being corrupt or hypocritical. Otherwise, maybe they are being overly generous with their diplomacy, but that's seen as a good thing (unless there's evidence that it's not, or proof that it's dishonest).

In a personal (non-political) sense (and more specifically), on the internet it's called being a white knight. That mainly applies to men defending women (pessimistically, because they want to get laid). It would be hard to apply that to Islam, but people would probably understand what you're talking about if you said "White Knighting for Islam"; the trouble is, it's hard to accuse them of getting anything out of it.

Pandering, or White Knighting -- both would generally be understood if you used those terms.

[Sakana]

Yeah, "white knight" describes that.

Another word people use on the internet these days is "social justice warrior" (SJW), which sounds like a good thing, but really isn't.

I'll try and define the term broadly speaking, mostly based on my observations and using my very politically incorrect way of writing.


- A person on the (very) far left with anti-capitalist and pro-censorship views
- Typically someone who is against using biological reasons to describe differences in behaviour, and instead favors the idea of the blank slate. Since culture is to blame for everything, any media or piece of art that is offensive, sexist, racist, ostracizing, etc., in the expert opinion of the SJW, must be banned or changed immediately.
- Is driven by confirmation biases and often completey ignores any counter-evidence.
- Will stand up for any perceived oppressed minority. Even if that minority tells the SJW that they're not weak and can fight for themselves, the SJW does not listen.
- Much like religious people, SJWs are primarily governed by emotions, and are therefore very hard to reason with. Their counterarguments often consist of yelling out insults, walking away or blocking you (online).
- They believe in original sin. If you're member of a historically privileged group, you're automatically the scum of the earth. Straight white males naturally rank highest on this privilege/oppressor scale, so it's encouraged that you mistreat and disrespect them at every opportunity.
- Will never judge an argument by the merit of the argument itselt, but instead judge it based on where the sender ranks on the perceived oppression scale. If a black lesbian midget makes a statement, it must be accepted as divine truth. If you disagree with anything that person says, you're automatically a raging homophobic racist.
- They pretend to stand up against racism and other forms of discrimination, but ironically are often the most racist, sexist bigots you will ever meet.
- Only care about 1st world non-problems, such as men spreading their legs too much on subway seats ( #manspreading ), or the lack of ethnic diversity among the characters in a first person shooter game.
- They often make careers out of being slanderous journalists or annoying internet personalities.
- The gender distribution among SJWs is around 50/50 in my experience. To follow the SJW belief system as a male, you simply need to hate yourself a lot.


I guess some of that might apply to Ben Affleck. He seems to talk very loudly/yell without really listening to what people are saying. He also wrongly equates criticism of Islam with racism, which in itself is a very racist comment, if you think about it.

[Jebus]

Another word people use on the internet these days is "social justice warrior" (SJW)

Thank you Sakana. Your description comes very close to the type of person I had in mind.