The Word "Ally"

[New Edom]

I am a bit picky about words. It bugs me when people use 'monkey' to describe apes, or 'rodent' to describe small furry mammals regardless of whether they are rodents or not. (like say, raccoons or bats).

But lately I find what bugs me is when LGBT people and feminists use the word 'ally' to mean "someone who claims to be on our side."

Generally being an ally means joining with, uniting with, and the definition I feel sums it up best is this one: a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

So it has come to be increasingly common for people to talk about 'being a good ally' yet there is intense defensiveness about even the notion of constructive criticism given to LGBT or feminist activists about the same. What do others think of this? Should this not change so that there can be constructive talk about mutual benefits of being an ally?

[Page]

A good ally doesn't self-identify as an ally or asked to be acknowledged as one, they simply are because of their actions.

[Avenio]

... So you're upset that a word has a non-standard definition - something that, as a pedant, you intensely dislike because it differs from your chosen dictionary of choice?

Why does the fact that words have meanings independent of what you, specifically, want them to have worthy of a thread?

[New Edom]

... So you're upset that a word has a non-standard definition - something that, as a pedant, you intensely dislike because it differs from your chosen dictionary of choice?

Why does the fact that words have meanings independent of what you, specifically, want them to have worthy of a thread?

Well, for a start it's misleading. Why not say 'supporter' which is an already existing and perfectly good word? After all, politicians don't ask people to become their allies when they mean supporters--they will say things like "will you support our campaign by putting up our banners/signs, putting on our buttons." And in fact, the White Ribbon Campaign, a campaign which is about ending violence against women, asks for people's support. I have no problem with the use of the word support. It is more accurate.

[Page]

... So you're upset that a word has a non-standard definition - something that, as a pedant, you intensely dislike because it differs from your chosen dictionary of choice?

Why does the fact that words have meanings independent of what you, specifically, want them to have worthy of a thread?

Well, for a start it's misleading. Why not say 'supporter' which is an already existing and perfectly good word? After all, politicians don't ask people to become their allies when they mean supporters--they will say things like "will you support our campaign by putting up our banners/signs, putting on our buttons." And in fact, the White Ribbon Campaign, a campaign which is about ending violence against women, asks for people's support. I have no problem with the use of the word support. It is more accurate.

Let me put it this way. I'm a supporter of a sovereign, Kurdish state. I'm not Kurdish nor do I know any Kurds personally, but from what I've read and learned about the world, in my judgment I think they deserve a country of their own.

But then with say, trans issues, there are people close to me who mean a lot to me who are trans and so that cause is more personal. I don't just support trans peoples' rights out of principle but because I've been personally exposed to their struggle even though I haven't lived it myself.

So the two positions are different; they both relate to my opinions about a matter but they come from different places.

[Avenio]

Well, for a start it's misleading. Why not say 'supporter' which is an already existing and perfectly good word?

I dunno, because it's not the right word? We're talking about people who actively (note that; nice, strong and motive word, that) participate in the movement, but aren't LGTB or a woman. 'Ally' is a perfectly good word.

After all, politicians don't ask people to become their allies when they mean supporters--they will say things like "will you support our campaign by putting up our banners/signs, putting on our buttons."

They will, however, talk about other politicians and active participants using the word 'ally'. Since, again, we're talking about active participants not people who chip in to buy a bumper sticker.

And in fact, the White Ribbon Campaign, a campaign which is about ending violence against women, asks for people's support. I have no problem with the use of the word support. It is more accurate.

Again, your opinion about word usage as an amateur pedant on the internet is not nearly important enough to warrant changing the terminology.

[The Sotoan Union]

I am a bit picky about words. It bugs me when people use 'monkey' to describe apes, or 'rodent' to describe small furry mammals regardless of whether they are rodents or not. (like say, raccoons or bats).

But lately I find what bugs me is when LGBT people and feminists use the word 'ally' to mean "someone who claims to be on our side."

Generally being an ally means joining with, uniting with, and the definition I feel sums it up best is this one: a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

So it has come to be increasingly common for people to talk about 'being a good ally' yet there is intense defensiveness about even the notion of constructive criticism given to LGBT or feminist activists about the same. What do others think of this? Should this not change so that there can be constructive talk about mutual benefits of being an ally?

I got into a heated debate about whether apes are monkeys with someone once. The argument ended when he asserted that apes is the term used to describe specific species, but ultimately they are still monkeys in a very broad sense. I didn't know enough about monkeys to continue.

The arguments people get into huh.

[Neu-Pommern]

I couldn't careless, but misused words are a diamond dozen.

[Benuty]

You just out pedantried me.

Impossible.

[Empire of Narnia]

You should go like play a video game or something. Splitting hairs over the casual use of one word isn't worth wasting time over.

[New Edom]

Alright, let's try this then: I think it's just another way for politically correct people to try to control others' words and behaviour, and claim a high position for people who can claim being victims.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Alright, let's try this then: I think it's just another way for politically correct people to try to control others' words and behaviour, and claim a high position for people who can claim being victims.

Yes, it is a plot involving the Gays and Liberals to ultimately control the world through political correctness and all that, etc. etc..

[New Edom]

Why is it never possible to discuss issues of courtesy and clarity about these issues?

[Margno]

... So you're upset that a word has a non-standard definition - something that, as a pedant, you intensely dislike because it differs from your chosen dictionary of choice?

Why does the fact that words have meanings independent of what you, specifically, want them to have worthy of a thread?

A question I've asked in many swastika, confederate flag, and "it's unfair that white people can't use the n word" threads/discussions.
OP, what exactly are you trying to acquire the gays' help with? I don't imagine it's that you need signatures on a petition to start a straight club.
I imagine they would be helping if there was some pressing issue that applied specifically to heterosexuals, but the fact that there's a large group of people who think being gay is wrong and will do quite a lot to have this view become a social norm again, (and a distinct lack of 30-40% of the population doing the same with straights,) is kind of why there's a homosexuality "issue" in the first place.
Most of them are involved in politics in other matters, where they try to address, for example, the issues of the poor. They just don't bring up the fact that they're gay in the process because why would they?

[New Edom]

I see threads in forums, blog posts, youtube clips showing people talking about 'being a good ally' which seems to consist of simply accepting whatever line of thought is proposed, shutting up and listening, and being told that any input offered independently of established conventions of thought are essentially arrogant and inappropriate. Disagreeing with this--regardless of what aid, activism or donations have been made--is sufficient to be accused of not really caring about the supporting cause at all. This is why I have raised this concern.

[Skeckoa]

Yes, it is a plot involving the Gays and Liberals to ultimately control the world through political correctness and all that, etc. etc..

The struggles are real.

[New Edom]

Yes, it is a plot involving the Gays and Liberals to ultimately control the world through political correctness and all that, etc. etc..

The struggles are real.

lol

[Skeckoa]

I see threads in forums, blog posts, youtube clips showing people talking about 'being a good ally' which seems to consist of simply accepting whatever line of thought is proposed, shutting up and listening, and being told that any input offered independently of established conventions of thought are essentially arrogant and inappropriate. Disagreeing with this--regardless of what aid, activism or donations have been made--is sufficient to be accused of not really caring about the supporting cause at all. This is why I have raised this concern.

The idea is that if you are a straight ally, great. Be an ally and support people with less provelage than you in public spaces, don't interrupt. It's pretty given that any LGBTQ person has loads of people to choose from if they wanted to hear the opinion of a cis-het dude.

Or worst yet, getting attention and seeking some sort of reward for the fact that you treat people like human beings. You don't have to accept what they say, but the debate as to what must go on is something that should be done by members of the community as opposed to an outsider.

EX: Assuming you are cisgendered, there is little that we can input as to an issue like if a certain word is offensive or not. BUT I DON"T MEAN IT IN A MEAN WAY, don't change the facts.

You sound like you may of had a bad run-in.

[Anglo-California]

The way the LGBT group uses the word "ally" is kind of correct. But what bugs me is how the definitions of racism and sexism have been changed so fucking much. Like where the fuck did this whole "blacks can't be racist, because racism requires power" spiel come from?

[Skeckoa]

The way the LGBT group uses the word "ally" is kind of correct. But what bugs me is how the definitions of racism and sexism have been changed so fucking much. Like where the fuck did this whole "blacks can't be racist, because racism requires power" spiel come from?

I always took it as saying that a White being racist to a black, even casually, held much larger repercussions than if the role was reversed since one person in that group is going to hold much more power than the other.

How they morphed the word... have you tried asking?

[Northwest Slobovia]

I couldn't careless, but misused words are a diamond dozen.

Well put.

[New Edom]

Either people want equality or they don't. Either people want fairness or they don't. The above example about "Blacks cannot be bigots" is a very good example. Anyone can have unfair prejudices.

In a similar way, it is possible to be sexist towards men and unfair towards heterosexual people. It is possible for general teachings to lean that way.

And furthermore--why should people not get recognition for good deeds? Why is there this odd perspective that people should simply be punished for wrongdoing and expect no reward or recognition for the good that they do? There is a difference between getting a reward just for a few words spoken and being recognized for instance for consistent charity.

My grandmother received a government award for twenty five years of helping organize charity drives for the children's hospital in our city. Should she NOT have been given that recognition?

Let's take it down a step--someone speaks up on my behalf when I am treated unfairly for racist reasons. Should I NOT thank them for speaking up? Since when is it bad to encourage and reward decency?

[Avenio]

Alright, let's try this then: I think it's just another way for politically correct people to try to control others' words and behaviour, and claim a high position for people who can claim being victims.

That's a little rich considering that's exactly what you're doing in this thread. I mean, you basically admitted it here;

In a similar way, it is possible to be sexist towards men and unfair towards heterosexual people.

You're upset that the LGTB/feminist movement isn't being sufficiently deferential to you, the cis-heterosexual male.

[Sebastianbourg]

Either people want equality or they don't. Either people want fairness or they don't. The above example about "Blacks cannot be bigots" is a very good example. Anyone can have unfair prejudices.

In a similar way, it is possible to be sexist towards men and unfair towards heterosexual people. It is possible for general teachings to lean that way.

And furthermore--why should people not get recognition for good deeds? Why is there this odd perspective that people should simply be punished for wrongdoing and expect no reward or recognition for the good that they do? There is a difference between getting a reward just for a few words spoken and being recognized for instance for consistent charity.

My grandmother received a government award for twenty five years of helping organize charity drives for the children's hospital in our city. Should she NOT have been given that recognition?

Let's take it down a step--someone speaks up on my behalf when I am treated unfairly for racist reasons. Should I NOT thank them for speaking up? Since when is it bad to encourage and reward decency?

Undoubtedly, the fight for egalitarianism has been taken a bit too far. As you just mentioned the groups which have been previously marginalised and/or historically oppressed are now held in a pedestal by Western society (this happens in a similar way in Europe -- especially the Nordic countries) in which we believe them to be incapable of instituting the same forms of discrimination or ancestors and predecessors instituted on their ancestors and predecessors. We believe they need to be put above us because of historic events we aren't responsible for.

I am as frustrated as you are with the current political correctness. I am fed-up with the man-hating Feminists (just the man-hating ones) and the fact that saying anything about blacks or whatever group perceived to be marginalised is now considered racist.

[New Edom]

No. What I'm proposing is that the word is not being used properly and it is being used in a way that is divisive and ineffective.