this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
-6 points (37.5% liked)
Casual Conversation
3891 readers
38 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible.
- Avoid controversial topics (e.g. politics or societal debates).
- Stay calm: Don’t post angry or to vent or complain. We are a place where everyone can forget about their everyday or not so everyday worries for a moment. Venting, complaining, or posting from a place of anger or resentment doesn't fit the atmosphere we try to foster at all. Feel free to post those on !goodoffmychest@lemmy.world
- Keep it clean and SFW
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
Casual conversation communities:
- !casualuk@feddit.uk
- !casualeurope@piefed.social
- !forumlibre@jlai.lu
- !batepapo@lemmy.eco.br
- !esp@lemm.ee
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@piefed.social
- !television@piefed.social
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No arguments here. But the way we conceptualise time is not time itself, just a framework for describing and understanding it.
Well now we're talking linguistics. And I'll throw out a fun conjecture without much thought: since people already use the word time to refer to social conceptions of time, referring to the scientific concept of spacetime as "time" is irresponsible, because of the risk that people will conflate the two.
I disagree that it's irresponsible, because the difference rarely matters, and for the ELI5 style answer I was giving, that level of nuance would have been out of place.
I acknowledge there is a distinction, and that when it's relevant, clear language helps avoid ambiguity. But I made a call to keep it simple in my response, which I stand by. Any ambiguity that was introduced will have been at least partially cleared up in this following discussion!
True enough, but I'm more concerned about how our language influences our own thoughts than those of others. OP was clearly talking about colloquial time, and in your top level reply, you changed the topic to spacetime. If I may be so bold as to speculate on your internal world, I doubt you even noticed that you'd changed the subject, because the homonym smoothed over this disconnect and made it disappear.
This is a good example of how our linguistic norms directly influence our perceptions in some very dramatic, yet mostly invisible ways. Everyone is susceptible to this kind of influence. In our current society, only skilled rhetoricians have the ability to engineer language to control other people's perceived realities. Naturally, these rhetoricians are employed by billionaires to push a Capital-friendly consensus reality.
If everyone had more knowledge of linguistic engineering, we could democratise both language and perception, giving more power to the people.