32 ms·

Time is inherently equalitarian, everybody gets the same amount so "I don't have the time" is a way to say "I don't think it's a priority for me and I would rat

by yholio 5y ago

Time is inherently equalitarian, everybody gets the same amount so "I don't have the time" is a way to say "I don't think it's a priority for me and I would rather do something else". Whereas financials can very drastically, so it's much more believable that you are in rough patch and simply can't afford it for objective as opposed to subjective reasons.

afarrell 5y ago
You are right that this is ultimately about choosing priorities and sticking to that choice. > "I don't have the time" Can also mean "I have enough chaos in my life right now that I cannot determine my priorities well enough to say yes and keep that commitment." > so it's much more believable This chaos can come from failing to say no to commitments for fear that the people in your life will not believe you about your own time-management situation.
- imdsm 5y ago
  Sadly, people don't respect time. Look at how people have destination weddings and expect people to travel and pay for accommodation. More recently I've simply started politely declining invitations without providing reasons.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    How is somebody planning their wedding based on their interests a lack of respect? The wedding isn't about the guests
    - teddyh 5y ago
      If invites are sent, then it’s at least a little bit about the guests. If people would be happy to get married at any place at any time, and don’t care in the slightest whether any other people show up, then you could say that it’s not about the guests. But you can’t.
      - silicon2401 5y ago
        I can, and I do. Weddings are about the people getting married, unless for some reason you think people get married for your sake or for their friends' sakes. If somebody has a problem, there's no law or hit squad sent out to compel them. It's unreasonable to have this attitude that people should limit their weddings just to "respect your time"
        jfengel 5y ago
        Public weddings are also about the guests. The guests serve a function: they witness the promises, and tacitly agree to help support them in fulfilling it. (I've even been to ceremonies that make that explicit: the guests are asked to reply to a vow with "We do".) Not every couple wants that. Some elope, and others hold ceremonies only because they think relatives and friends demand it of them. The latter is unfortunate, because it imposes a burden on the new couple that they shouldn't have to shoulder. But the couple should consider that community can be a crucial part of the success of their marriage, in ways that they may not recognize (especially if they're young). It can benefit them to have the community at the ceremony and feel invested in the marriage (for however they define "community"). Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved.
        silicon2401 5y ago
        > Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved. I think we have some overlap, I just lean more towards disregarding guests. For me it's strictly a matter of whether people come or not. If they want witness or someone to come, then yes the couple needs to be practical and consider compromise. But if they want support, then no, I don't think it's necessary to compromise. Someone's support of a couple shouldn't be based on how convenient and fun the couple's wedding was.
  - lagadu 5y ago
    You're implying that you somehow are entitled to having the weddings you want to attend be near your place of residence. Why would the people getting married prioritize your entitlement over them having the party where they'd enjoy having it? It's their party, your being invited at all is already a courtesy being extended to you.
    - SapporoChris 5y ago
      My thought process is optimization for all the guests. Doing some simple math: Cost of holding wedding at location X + cost of wedding attendents travel + cost of lodging at location X vs the same costs at location Y. Not surprising, the location where the majority of the attendents reside is usually the most economical for the total cost the wedding for all involved. I do understand that it is the couples wedding and they can choose where they want to hold it. I am surprised that more couples (in my limited experience) do not consider their guests expenses more.
      - c618b9b695c4 5y ago
        You are assuming they want all of the guests to attend. Plenty of family and friend obligations that become socially awkward to snub. Destination wedding will eliminate some percentage of guests who "do not matter", which has the side benefit of reducing the venue expense.
    - Haliocioto 5y ago
      Interesting how different perspectives are on such topics. When we got married, our goal was to have a great party for everyone we invited. Which included thinking about were our wedding is, making sure our Guests have a great time and that the photographer would make sure to also take pictures of and for them as you normally dress for the event. I would personally not care about a wedding without guests and i wouldn't care about random guests. Therefore my mental conclusion is, that its the guests who are a critical part of our wedding and therefore they do serve being accounted for. Of course if i would marry somewhere totally different, i would make it much smaller to put less pressure on my guests but i was really happy to have nearly my whole family taking part in our wedding. But it probably depends on your expectation. If you don't mind your guests not coming due to costs and effort, its probably valid as well.
BoiledCabbage 5y ago
> Time is inherently equalitarian, everybody gets the same amount so "I don't have the time" is a way to say "I don't think it's a priority for me and I would rather do something else". The scientific concept of time is. The social concept of time / free time definitely is not. The amount of free time you have as a 14 year old kid, is very different from the amount of time you have being single in your mid 20s, which is very different from the amount of time you have being a parent with 3 kids. Saying everyone has the same amount of time is wrong.
- antiframe 5y ago
  They do have the same amount of time. They spend it differently. That reflects their values. What you described was not different amounts of time but different values and priorities.
  - Cd00d 5y ago
    They don't have the same amount of "their own" or "unobligated" time
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Depends of the country. Could mean you don't want to spend the money for me.
danaris 5y ago
It is true that everyone gets the same 24 hours each day. It is not true that the ability to allocate that time is egalitarian. It is much, much more likely that people with less money will have to spend more of their time working, taking care of children, cooking, cleaning, commuting on public transport, and 1001 other things that pick away at their time, but would be easily resolvable if they just had wads of disposable cash to throw at them instead.
- doubled112 5y ago
  It turns out all problems are money problems.

by yholio 5y ago

afarrell 5y ago

You are right that this is ultimately about choosing priorities and sticking to that choice. > "I don't have the time" Can also mean "I have enough chaos in my life right now that I cannot determine my priorities well enough to say yes and keep that commitment." > so it's much more believable This chaos can come from failing to say no to commitments for fear that the people in your life will not believe you about your own time-management situation.

imdsm 5y ago
Sadly, people don't respect time. Look at how people have destination weddings and expect people to travel and pay for accommodation. More recently I've simply started politely declining invitations without providing reasons.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  How is somebody planning their wedding based on their interests a lack of respect? The wedding isn't about the guests
  - teddyh 5y ago
    If invites are sent, then it’s at least a little bit about the guests. If people would be happy to get married at any place at any time, and don’t care in the slightest whether any other people show up, then you could say that it’s not about the guests. But you can’t.
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      I can, and I do. Weddings are about the people getting married, unless for some reason you think people get married for your sake or for their friends' sakes. If somebody has a problem, there's no law or hit squad sent out to compel them. It's unreasonable to have this attitude that people should limit their weddings just to "respect your time"
      - jfengel 5y ago
        Public weddings are also about the guests. The guests serve a function: they witness the promises, and tacitly agree to help support them in fulfilling it. (I've even been to ceremonies that make that explicit: the guests are asked to reply to a vow with "We do".) Not every couple wants that. Some elope, and others hold ceremonies only because they think relatives and friends demand it of them. The latter is unfortunate, because it imposes a burden on the new couple that they shouldn't have to shoulder. But the couple should consider that community can be a crucial part of the success of their marriage, in ways that they may not recognize (especially if they're young). It can benefit them to have the community at the ceremony and feel invested in the marriage (for however they define "community"). Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved.
        silicon2401 5y ago
        > Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved. I think we have some overlap, I just lean more towards disregarding guests. For me it's strictly a matter of whether people come or not. If they want witness or someone to come, then yes the couple needs to be practical and consider compromise. But if they want support, then no, I don't think it's necessary to compromise. Someone's support of a couple shouldn't be based on how convenient and fun the couple's wedding was.
- lagadu 5y ago
  You're implying that you somehow are entitled to having the weddings you want to attend be near your place of residence. Why would the people getting married prioritize your entitlement over them having the party where they'd enjoy having it? It's their party, your being invited at all is already a courtesy being extended to you.
  - SapporoChris 5y ago
    My thought process is optimization for all the guests. Doing some simple math: Cost of holding wedding at location X + cost of wedding attendents travel + cost of lodging at location X vs the same costs at location Y. Not surprising, the location where the majority of the attendents reside is usually the most economical for the total cost the wedding for all involved. I do understand that it is the couples wedding and they can choose where they want to hold it. I am surprised that more couples (in my limited experience) do not consider their guests expenses more.
    - c618b9b695c4 5y ago
      You are assuming they want all of the guests to attend. Plenty of family and friend obligations that become socially awkward to snub. Destination wedding will eliminate some percentage of guests who "do not matter", which has the side benefit of reducing the venue expense.
  - Haliocioto 5y ago
    Interesting how different perspectives are on such topics. When we got married, our goal was to have a great party for everyone we invited. Which included thinking about were our wedding is, making sure our Guests have a great time and that the photographer would make sure to also take pictures of and for them as you normally dress for the event. I would personally not care about a wedding without guests and i wouldn't care about random guests. Therefore my mental conclusion is, that its the guests who are a critical part of our wedding and therefore they do serve being accounted for. Of course if i would marry somewhere totally different, i would make it much smaller to put less pressure on my guests but i was really happy to have nearly my whole family taking part in our wedding. But it probably depends on your expectation. If you don't mind your guests not coming due to costs and effort, its probably valid as well.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago

> Time is inherently equalitarian, everybody gets the same amount so "I don't have the time" is a way to say "I don't think it's a priority for me and I would rather do something else". The scientific concept of time is. The social concept of time / free time definitely is not. The amount of free time you have as a 14 year old kid, is very different from the amount of time you have being single in your mid 20s, which is very different from the amount of time you have being a parent with 3 kids. Saying everyone has the same amount of time is wrong.

antiframe 5y ago
They do have the same amount of time. They spend it differently. That reflects their values. What you described was not different amounts of time but different values and priorities.
- Cd00d 5y ago
  They don't have the same amount of "their own" or "unobligated" time

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

Depends of the country. Could mean you don't want to spend the money for me.

danaris 5y ago

It is true that everyone gets the same 24 hours each day. It is not true that the ability to allocate that time is egalitarian. It is much, much more likely that people with less money will have to spend more of their time working, taking care of children, cooking, cleaning, commuting on public transport, and 1001 other things that pick away at their time, but would be easily resolvable if they just had wads of disposable cash to throw at them instead.

doubled112 5y ago
It turns out all problems are money problems.