this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
65 points (85.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35393 readers
5 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The closest word I can think of is a sycophant but that's too strong word and not exactly what I'm looking for. The word I'm thinking of has negative connotations and it's for someone who is friends with different groups but only at a superficial level and isn't necessarily honest about who all they're friends with. This person would be seen as untrustworthy.

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 64 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You all are harsh.

“A social butterfly is a slang term for a person who is socially dynamic, successful at networking, charismatic, and personally gregarious. Usually, social butterflies don't belong to a particular group, but rather jump from one group to another.” Wikipedia

Edit: Perhaps it doesn’t answer the question because it’s not a single word. It came to mind immediately though. Maybe start there and look for synonyms?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Hmm I think it's fine if someone is a social butterfly, they don't have bad intentions etc. I am talking about someone who seems like you can trust them but actually they have other loyalties, I live in a place where people get arrested for supporting democracy for example

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

If we're talking where consequences of their friendships get you thrown in jail, traitor is a pretty good word.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I heard them called "bats" because they flap around between different groups and are associated with darkness thus "shady"!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I heard them called “bats” because they flap around between different groups and are associated with darkness thus “shady”!

hahahahah

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

What about perfidious gadabout?

I think your focus is on the disloyalty, but really there are two aspects of your description that make it difficult to find s single word which fits well. I’m also thinking the individual isn’t necessarily disloyal, but rather loyal to an unseen cause. E.g., disingenuous. If the person is a plant, then “mole” comes to mind.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Such a weird concept - you don't trust someone who has a wide variety of friends? I have several very different hobbies/activities, so naturally there's little overlap in my friend groups. Most of my friends are like this - for example one belongs to three choirs and I don't know any of those friends. Or her kayaking friends, or her work friends. I'm giggling thinking how baffled she'd be if I started questioning her "loyalty". Even my very closest friends have other friend groups I'm not part of. So what?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

no, it's normal to have a variety of friends

i'm talking about people with loyalty to a specific ideology and they are not honest about who they are in contact with, i live in asia in an area where you can get in a lot of trouble if you support democracy and if you share such information with the wrong person you can get in a lot of trouble

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Reminds me of a line from 'Catch-22.' I may have the wrong character name.

Orr would defend his Communist friends to his Fascist freinds and he would defend his Fascist friends to his Communist friends. No one ever defended Orr because he was too weird.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Orr would defend his Communist friends to his Fascist freinds and he would defend his Fascist friends to his Communist friends. No one ever defended Orr because he was too weird.

yes this is basically what I mean

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In the book, the character was sincere. He really did try to see both sides and get along with people. It never seemed to work.

To answer the original question; a good term would be 'two-faced.' Someone who pretends to be a friend and then gossips about you with others.

'Wishy-washy' is a person who simply goes along with the majority without having strong opinions of their own.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I agree. I think 'two-faced' is the best i've seen based on OP's various comments in the thread.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ooooh ok, in that context I can see what the issue is. That is such a heads-up for me in terms of making assumptions based on my own privilege, and I apologise for doing that here. I'm very lucky to be able to discuss politics without fear. I wish you all the best.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That is such a heads-up for me in terms of making assumptions based on my own privilege, and I apologise for doing that here. I’m very lucky to be able to discuss politics without fear.

it's ok, everyone has their own problems

my wording was maybe not clear

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Sounds like they are just doing their best to survive in an oppressive situation. If you can get in serious trouble for your beliefs it is normal not to be open about things that relate to that subject.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago

Free agent. Floater.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

What about a "social climber"? Someone whose friendships are based on calculations about who can help them succeed in other ways?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

That was my thought too

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, the good version of someone like that would be a diplomat, but the untrustworthy version is definitely an opportunist.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago

Opportunist is definitely closer to what i'm thinking than sycophant.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Is this person known to be friends with each group, by each group? Or are they trying to keep their connections hidden, as well?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago

They keep their connections hidden; it is the other groups who when asked state that they are friendly with this person.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I know people who were Christians in Afghanistan, who were outed to the government (Taliban). The word they use is "spy". It may not be the normal, English use of the word, but it's the word that real-life people who have been on the receiving end of the betrayal use.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I know people who were Christians in Afghanistan, who were outed to the government (Taliban). The word they use is “spy”. It may not be the normal, English use of the word, but it’s the word that real-life people who have been on the receiving end of the betrayal use.

This is basically what i mean; someone who you can't fully trust about their allegiance.

That is really awful what happened to those people; are they ok now?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Sorry to be very late to reply.

I know two people who were Christians in Afghanistan, they are both now in North America. When they were found out, they fled their homes with little more than the clothes on their backs to India. They did not know each other in Afghanistan (they came from different states), but became friends in India. One fellow was there for 7 years, the other for 14 years. India does not recognize refugee status, therefore they were undocumented (illegal) people with no rights or the ability to work legally. They got by by doing under-table work for cash and by the kindness of others. They still faced attempts on their lives in India, too, by other Afghan Muslims living there. Since they were not there legally, they could not go to the police to report the assaults. The guy who was there for 7 years, he was sponsored to leave India and go to another country as a refugee. After he settled and eventually became a citizen, he started the process to sponsor his friend whom he'd left behind. They, and their church, are now sponsoring more refugees.

Are they okay? That's hard to say. I mean, they're doing much better because they are safe, but they have certain behaviours borne from their hardships and traumas. They are very mistrustful of the government, for one; it's basically unbelievable to them that there can be government programs that are beneficial to them. There must be strings, or some way for the government to spy on them. Sometimes I see self-soothing behaviours, like one guy kind of holds himself and rocks back and forth. They need therapy, but that kind of thing is not really within their radar. But they are still compassionate people who are very hard-working and dedicated to helping or saving others who were in the same situation as they were. I don't think they will ever have "peace" so long as there's more injustice to fight against in the world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

i learned a new word, thank you!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

A tag-along?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Fair-weather friend?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Turncoat, two-faced, quisling, crony?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Maybe dilettante, maverick ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Wolf in sheep's clothing

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

What about a shapeshifter?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Only words I can think of are "lickspittle" and "toady," but those are both for people who are overly nice to people in authority. Maybe "disingenuous?"

[–] [email protected] -5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

disingenuous

disingenuous could definitely be it; they're not straightforward about their intentions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Interacting with different groups of people has nothing to do with being earnest or forthright.

I have friend groups that dont interact, but it has nothing to do with them. These are people from differnet parts of my life like work or different hobbies that could co-mingle, but life is too complicated to actually sort that out. I dont really overly discuss one group with another unless interests cross. It's nothing personal, it's simply that these groups exist largely in separate parts of my life, so they tend to stay there.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Maybe fickle

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Snake / snake-in-the-grass has the connotations of fake loyalty, not sure if it's specifically amongst several groups but it fits.