4 ms·

EDIT: Semantics follow. Also, trigger warning -- someone has an opinion on the Internet. Since it isn't identical to yours, butthurt may ensue. I don't want to

EDIT: Semantics follow. Also, trigger warning -- someone has an opinion on the Internet. Since it isn't identical to yours, butthurt may ensue. I don't want to be a better ally, and it's condescending for anyone to demand it. Definition: The enemy of your enemy is your ally. (Remix of "the enemy of your enemy is your friend".) If I and another person are fighting a common enemy, I don't suddenly earn the privilege of telling them how to conduct themselves in their own affairs. Nor does it similarly empower them to make demands of me. We agree that the enemy we're fighting is a problem. That's all being an ally means. It doesn't imply any sort of deeper relationship, just a common goal. The concept of "a better ally" is not compatible here. "Well, we're on the same side, but you're not good enough of an ally for my standards."

JoergR 11y ago
Maybe you should try to understand even the most basic concepts before you embarrass yourself massively by mansplaining about common sides, enemies and who is allowed to judge you.
nostrebored 11y ago
First of all, who is demanding it? This article is telling people who do want to help people who are underrepresented and face discrimination in technology a way in which they can do better. I, for one, like knowing how to do better. Even if I'm doing an adequate job, I appreciate when my employees tell me that I could be more productive if I changed how I worked. I enjoy acting on that change and becoming better, and seeing how changing my actions makes things run more smoothly. This situation is not very different. I think the brunt of what you're saying comes down to saying 'I don't want to be a better ally' -- why not? When you're working on a team or towards a shared agenda, you should try and communicate and best understand how to interact with the people that you're working with -- this is just basic teamwork... When you're a member of the group that's part of the problem, you should probably grant more weight to what the group that is suffering discrimination/bias is saying. Let me decode what 'you're not a good enough ally for my standards' means -- it means you're still being a dick, and not listening to what people are saying. It means you're still part of the problem. The things that were talked about in this article are things that my fiancee faces in her job as an SDE at Amazon with an unbelievable, near daily frequency, and it really irks me when people decide to put their head in the sand about it.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  > I think the brunt of what you're saying comes down to saying 'I don't want to be a better ally' -- why not? No, I'm arguing against the use of the word "ally". I'll do whatever I can to help people who are discriminated against, but as soon as the measuring stick of "quality of alliance" comes out, I check right the fuck out and hop on the express train to Nopesville. I refuse to have any part in this stupid torture of the English language.
  - nostrebored 11y ago
    What would you prefer to call it? If you'd prefer to use feminism as an abstraction you can break it down as follows: Feminism is a women's movement for women by women. I am not a woman, so I cannot be a feminist, but I can be a feminist ally. The same thread of logic follows for the other movements. As we're talking about the movement of feminism, the "quality of alliance" can be clearly shown by the alignment of your attitudes with the movement's and your support for women you see facing issues related to patriarchal systems/biases. I fail to see how this is a torture of the English language. The same is done with international politics -- clearly we have ways that countries can be better allies to the U.S., if we're making the U.S. the center of focus. Whether or not we should do that is a different discussion.
    - sarciszewski 11y ago
      > Feminism is a women's movement for women by women. I am not a woman, so I cannot be a feminist, but I can be a feminist ally. > What would you prefer to call it? I'd prefer the use of the compound noun "feminist ally" over the generic and ambiguous noun "ally". > I fail to see how this is a torture of the English language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Slight exaggeration for the sake of humor.
      - nostrebored 11y ago
        That's a fair point. Ambiguous use of ally does presume a lot, and does make things a bit more murky.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The enemy of your enemy is your ally. No, the enemy of your enemy is just your enemy's enemy -- they might be still an enemy of yours, might be an ally of yours, and might be entirely neutral toward you. An ally is more than just the enemy of an enemy, and an ally is exactly the kind of relation that, if you actually were one, you'd be likely to be concerned with how to be a better one.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  > No, the enemy of your enemy is just your enemy's enemy -- they might be still an enemy of yours, might be an ally of yours, and might be entirely neutral toward you. Let's say you and I both hate Nazis. We might join forces to take down Nazis, but I'm not going to invite you over for dinner. And I wouldn't expect you to accept if I ever did offer. And that doesn't entitle you to tell me how I should behave (especially if we have significant cultural differences). The common saying is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I don't think this quite captures the nuance between friends (people you actually care for) and allies (people whom are on your side but you couldn't be bothered to spend time with). That is the distinction I've drawn here. Telling me to be "a better ally" becomes meaningless and needlessly entitled. TL;DR I'm deeply interested in being a better FRIEND, but I don't care at all about being a better ALLY.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > We might join forces to take down Nazis, And that would make us allies -- not the fact that we are both enemies of the Nazis, but that we make the decision to work together toward the goal of defeating them. And "better allies" are people who, having made the decision to work together toward a common goal that makes them allies, more effectively work together toward their common goal. If you are going to choose to be allies, its usually for effectiveness in attaining the common goal, so its normal to want to be better allies if that is possible. OTOH, lots of parties with mutual enemies aren't allies and don't choose to work together against their common enemy (a common, but not the only reason, for this is that the two parties that share a mutual enemy also have a mutual enmity that is as strong, or stronger, than that each has for the common enemy). > The common saying is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." This is a common saying, and its even more wrong in practice than "the enemy of enemy is my ally". But that "...is my friend" is wrong doesn't make "...is my ally" right. > I don't think this quite captures the nuance between friends (people you actually care for) and allies (people whom are on your side but you couldn't be bothered to spend time with). I would say that your description of "friends" is fine, but your description of "allies" misses elements of the usual definition; while alliances may be tactical, they involve more than just sharing a common goal at arms lengths, they involve the decision to work together to achieve the common goal. You seem, in this description, to reduce allies to mere "people who share a goal, perhaps at arm's length". If that's all the commonality you have with someone, you aren't an ally at all, and there message directed at those who would be their allies about how to be a better ally isn't directed at you.
jeanettehead17 11y ago
Author here. The term 'Ally' is often used to describe men supporting diversity (especially gender diversity) in technology. Some examples: the ADA initiative does an 'Ally Skills Workshop' and the Grace Hopper Conference had a "Male Ally Panel".

JoergR 11y ago

Maybe you should try to understand even the most basic concepts before you embarrass yourself massively by mansplaining about common sides, enemies and who is allowed to judge you.

nostrebored 11y ago

First of all, who is demanding it? This article is telling people who do want to help people who are underrepresented and face discrimination in technology a way in which they can do better. I, for one, like knowing how to do better. Even if I'm doing an adequate job, I appreciate when my employees tell me that I could be more productive if I changed how I worked. I enjoy acting on that change and becoming better, and seeing how changing my actions makes things run more smoothly. This situation is not very different. I think the brunt of what you're saying comes down to saying 'I don't want to be a better ally' -- why not? When you're working on a team or towards a shared agenda, you should try and communicate and best understand how to interact with the people that you're working with -- this is just basic teamwork... When you're a member of the group that's part of the problem, you should probably grant more weight to what the group that is suffering discrimination/bias is saying. Let me decode what 'you're not a good enough ally for my standards' means -- it means you're still being a dick, and not listening to what people are saying. It means you're still part of the problem. The things that were talked about in this article are things that my fiancee faces in her job as an SDE at Amazon with an unbelievable, near daily frequency, and it really irks me when people decide to put their head in the sand about it.

sarciszewski 11y ago
> I think the brunt of what you're saying comes down to saying 'I don't want to be a better ally' -- why not? No, I'm arguing against the use of the word "ally". I'll do whatever I can to help people who are discriminated against, but as soon as the measuring stick of "quality of alliance" comes out, I check right the fuck out and hop on the express train to Nopesville. I refuse to have any part in this stupid torture of the English language.
- nostrebored 11y ago
  What would you prefer to call it? If you'd prefer to use feminism as an abstraction you can break it down as follows: Feminism is a women's movement for women by women. I am not a woman, so I cannot be a feminist, but I can be a feminist ally. The same thread of logic follows for the other movements. As we're talking about the movement of feminism, the "quality of alliance" can be clearly shown by the alignment of your attitudes with the movement's and your support for women you see facing issues related to patriarchal systems/biases. I fail to see how this is a torture of the English language. The same is done with international politics -- clearly we have ways that countries can be better allies to the U.S., if we're making the U.S. the center of focus. Whether or not we should do that is a different discussion.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    > Feminism is a women's movement for women by women. I am not a woman, so I cannot be a feminist, but I can be a feminist ally. > What would you prefer to call it? I'd prefer the use of the compound noun "feminist ally" over the generic and ambiguous noun "ally". > I fail to see how this is a torture of the English language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Slight exaggeration for the sake of humor.
    - nostrebored 11y ago
      That's a fair point. Ambiguous use of ally does presume a lot, and does make things a bit more murky.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> The enemy of your enemy is your ally. No, the enemy of your enemy is just your enemy's enemy -- they might be still an enemy of yours, might be an ally of yours, and might be entirely neutral toward you. An ally is more than just the enemy of an enemy, and an ally is exactly the kind of relation that, if you actually were one, you'd be likely to be concerned with how to be a better one.

sarciszewski 11y ago
> No, the enemy of your enemy is just your enemy's enemy -- they might be still an enemy of yours, might be an ally of yours, and might be entirely neutral toward you. Let's say you and I both hate Nazis. We might join forces to take down Nazis, but I'm not going to invite you over for dinner. And I wouldn't expect you to accept if I ever did offer. And that doesn't entitle you to tell me how I should behave (especially if we have significant cultural differences). The common saying is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I don't think this quite captures the nuance between friends (people you actually care for) and allies (people whom are on your side but you couldn't be bothered to spend time with). That is the distinction I've drawn here. Telling me to be "a better ally" becomes meaningless and needlessly entitled. TL;DR I'm deeply interested in being a better FRIEND, but I don't care at all about being a better ALLY.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > We might join forces to take down Nazis, And that would make us allies -- not the fact that we are both enemies of the Nazis, but that we make the decision to work together toward the goal of defeating them. And "better allies" are people who, having made the decision to work together toward a common goal that makes them allies, more effectively work together toward their common goal. If you are going to choose to be allies, its usually for effectiveness in attaining the common goal, so its normal to want to be better allies if that is possible. OTOH, lots of parties with mutual enemies aren't allies and don't choose to work together against their common enemy (a common, but not the only reason, for this is that the two parties that share a mutual enemy also have a mutual enmity that is as strong, or stronger, than that each has for the common enemy). > The common saying is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." This is a common saying, and its even more wrong in practice than "the enemy of enemy is my ally". But that "...is my friend" is wrong doesn't make "...is my ally" right. > I don't think this quite captures the nuance between friends (people you actually care for) and allies (people whom are on your side but you couldn't be bothered to spend time with). I would say that your description of "friends" is fine, but your description of "allies" misses elements of the usual definition; while alliances may be tactical, they involve more than just sharing a common goal at arms lengths, they involve the decision to work together to achieve the common goal. You seem, in this description, to reduce allies to mere "people who share a goal, perhaps at arm's length". If that's all the commonality you have with someone, you aren't an ally at all, and there message directed at those who would be their allies about how to be a better ally isn't directed at you.

jeanettehead17 11y ago

Author here. The term 'Ally' is often used to describe men supporting diversity (especially gender diversity) in technology. Some examples: the ADA initiative does an 'Ally Skills Workshop' and the Grace Hopper Conference had a "Male Ally Panel".