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.
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?
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
If we’re talking where consequences of their friendships get you thrown in jail, traitor is a pretty good word.
I heard them called “bats” because they flap around between different groups and are associated with darkness thus “shady”!
I heard them called “bats” because they flap around between different groups and are associated with darkness thus “shady”!
hahahahah
In the USA, one term we have for this kind of person is “poseur”.
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.
I’d call them normal. What kind of psychopath has multiple friend groups, but is only “loyal” to one of them?
Or counter to that…
Cautious? I’ve known plenty of people who had just been hurt by past friendships, so they were cautious about putting themselves out there too much for fear of getting hurt.
If you’re friends with someone, wouldn’t you want to know if they’re also friends with someone problematic?
No. Because as a friend, it’s not my job to dictate my friends-friends. I’ve had plenty of friends that were friends with my enemies. I’ve had friends that were friends with ex-cons, etc. No problems.
Ex-cons might not be the best group to use in your example…
If I had a friend who kept the company of fascists, I’d probably drop them real quick - notably as the current iteration of fascists are intent on ensuring people like me are dead or ground under their boot.
On the flip side, just because I had a disagreement with someone doesn’t mean other friends can’t be friends with that someone - it takes a lot to be called “an enemy” of myself.
Why? If they’re Ex-cons, they’ve done their time and they deserve to be treated the same as everyone else.
They’re a perfect group to use in my example.
And there are very few actual fascists out there. If you’ve used that word more than twice this week, it might be a you problem.
It’s precisely that they should be treated the same that I don’t believe they make a good example as someone you wouldn’t want to be associating with.
You shouldn’t care that mates of yours hang with ex-cons, so there is no conflict to be had there.
I wasn’t remarking on the incidence rate of fascists, merely commenting on their views.
If I had a friend who kept the company of fascists, I’d probably drop them real quick
Not a good way to make them see reason. I know it’s hypothetical but if you’re friends shouldn’t you put in some effort to help instead of just drop them?
Given how out and proud the sentiments are expressed, the friend can’t say they didn’t know… I wouldn’t waste much time trying to have them see reason. You don’t accidentally join a dinner party where everyone else is a white supremacist, or an anti-vaxxer, or where everything they don’t like is woke and thus should be eliminated.
Either way I said probably… Which would likely follow as certainly after an attempt to see if maybe they have been wilfully ignorant (still not a good look).
deleted by creator
Maybe give it as an example.
I’ve had friends that were friends with ex-cons, etc.
you do you but I would definitely want to know if my friends were close with people who’d been in prison. If I worked in a field where they do background checks i would absolutely need to know if my friends were friends with those in prison. There’s a difference between dictating who people are friends with and knowing who people you give information to are close with.
Every where does background checks, these days. In any case we don’t really care about your friends; and outside of ts/sci type clearances, nobody runs checks that deep (or even has the ability to- you need to provide close contacts for them to run a check)
I live in Asia, if you tell the wrong person you are a democracy supporter you can get arrested or on a watch list
Surveillance states need not apply, but they’re still running checks for employment basically everywhere.
In any case, political crimes (“democracy supporter”) are just more justification to not care, imo.
In any case, political crimes (“democracy supporter”) are just more justification to not care, imo.
you are saying you want people to not care about who they share information with when they live under a state that will arrest you for many more reasons than someone in the west would expect?
This reeks of controlling
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?
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
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.
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
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.
I agree. I think ‘two-faced’ is the best i’ve seen based on OP’s various comments in the thread.
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.
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
deleted by creator
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.
Free agent. Floater.
What about a “social climber”? Someone whose friendships are based on calculations about who can help them succeed in other ways?
Opportunist
Yeah, the good version of someone like that would be a diplomat, but the untrustworthy version is definitely an opportunist.
Opportunist is definitely closer to what i’m thinking than sycophant.
Fair Weather Friend has gently negative connotations
Duplicitous?
i learned a new word, thank you!
Social chameleon
That was my thought too
Turncoat, two-faced, quisling, crony?
Flibbertigibbet
a will-o-the-wisp?
A clown.
A tag-along?
Is this person known to be friends with each group, by each group? Or are they trying to keep their connections hidden, as well?
They keep their connections hidden; it is the other groups who when asked state that they are friendly with this person.
Honestly I’d feel quite attacked if I were on the other side of this questioning.
sorry what do you mean? english is not my first language
You’re actively having people ask who their friends are, and they’re being guarded about it.
If you felt like you might be kicked out of a group of friends that you really liked, because of your association with someone THEY didn’t like; wouldn’t you be a little guarded too?
It doesn’t sound like you’re friends with this person at all. So if not, just stop pretending they’re your friend. Because if being friends with you is dependent on them NOT being friends with someone else – then you aren’t a friend.
I am not really understanding this, anyway I am looking for a word for someone who will be friends with pro-govt and pro-democracy people and you can’t trust a person like this or you will get arrested
Sounds like this but not necessarily friends with lots of people: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/duplicitous
I know of some who flit between groups, they are dangerous at times.
duplicitous
i learned a new word, thank you!
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.
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?
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.
A mimic
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?”
disingenuous
disingenuous could definitely be it; they’re not straightforward about their intentions.
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.
