A different kind of White Knight

This week I'm getting a little abstract, as I'd like to talk about two fairly distant topics that are good, but not always. That is to say, exercise caution should it ever come to either of these.

First, and likely more familiar, is the White Knight. A figure from mythology that's intentionally colour coded (and not in a good way), these are your medieval styled, armour-bound figures who save those in need, especially princesses and the like. They are meant to represent moral purity, fighting against evil. This is heavily rooted in the ideals stated in the Chivalric code. Not to say that there were never payments rendered, but the idea is to do a good deed because you are capable of doing good and it is the morally right thing to do.

A more modern portrait is that of men getting involved, often in women's business, importantly, whether they asked for it or not, and defending the woman's honour. Rather than seeing this as simply a part of their life code (as in chivalry), but expecting, often without asking, some form of payment. Extreme forms of this often involve the expectation of physical intimacy, although there is not a lot of properly documented studies on this - it's all anecdotal, but just head to Reddit or basically any other internet place for a taste of the opinion.

The danger, should it not be implied, is the motivation - that someone (regardless of gender) does something (wanted or not) specifically for payment without some sort of contract (IE a sales or trade agreement). Because it puts the 'in danger' party in further, if not worse danger of being accosted further by unwanted attention.

While I think helping people is good, I don't think holding it against them or expecting to bill them is fair- societies cannot, do not, and have not, to my knowledge, operated this way. Look to the emergency services as one example - they not only have a status higher than the civilian, they are paid for their services.

Consequently, white knights are also a type of investor - one who that would often seek to avoid hostile takeovers. It's a literal type of defence companies can potentially employ when the very heart of their organization is at risk.

Although I won't get too deep into investment jargon, I recently came across someone (on a dating app no less) who said they were an angel investor. Naturally, I had to look that up.

Turns out, an Angel Investor is a person or company that will 'bless' a start up with an injection of capital, rather than relying strictly on crowdsourcing or more speculative investors. And it turns out this isn't really a niche thing, and their reps aren't quite as bad as I thought, but I still say act with caution.

Although as with most things in Finance in Canada, they are somewhat regulated, and there are plenty of network options, as you can tell from the hyperlinks.

Though far less dangerous to a person, watch the fine print if you're ever connecting with someone so rich they can singlehandedly hand you enough money to start a business. Because, although the idea behind the 'angel' is that they don't ask for a lot in return, this seems like the exact type of thing that can get abused.

It also implies the existence of a devil/demon investor, something that there's far less information about, though some warn about it. And much with the white/black knight, part of the problem is the heavily coded language - not all help is a blessing - some of it can very much be a curse.

So where was I going with all this?

For one, I really don't like the names - they're really dated and heavily coded, and it implies that someone is doing a whole lot of saving when, in most cases, they're probably not. Of course one of these is, I would say, helpful on a far grander scale.

But I just want you to think. Especially as someone who fancied himself a white knight in high school - though then as now I am not much for starting or seeking confrontations. These days I just try and support people how and when they need it, although it's not always easy knowing what a person needs, but that's a topic for another time.

So what do you think - am I going somewhere with this one? Or am I just looking to demonize some good people?