4 ms·

> 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 towa

> 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.
- sarciszewski2 11y ago
  > 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 someone is going to go through the trouble to cooperate with someone enough to care what happens to them, then why wouldn't they try to be their friend instead of just an ally? > 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. Fair enough. I don't want to wear that label anyway.

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.

sarciszewski2 11y ago
> 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 someone is going to go through the trouble to cooperate with someone enough to care what happens to them, then why wouldn't they try to be their friend instead of just an ally? > 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. Fair enough. I don't want to wear that label anyway.