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
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.
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?
Social chameleon
That was my thought too
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.
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.
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 tag-along?
Fair-weather friend?
deleted by creator
A mimic
Maybe dilettante, maverick ?
Paigon
Paimon?
