Some of the feedback was disappointing– people said things along the lines of: “Lies of omission are not lies! The fact that you have to add ‘of omission’ shows this!”.
The worst that I have gotten in that vein was: “When you are on stand, you take an oath that says that you will convey the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The fact that you have to add ‘the whole truth’ shows that lies of omission are not lies.”
This was from a person that also straightforwardly stated “I plan to keep continuing to not state my most relevant opinions in public”, as they were defending this behavior.
What are your...let’s say 5...most controversial political viewpoints that you would get in most trouble (with family/friend groups/employers/government/etc.) for expressing?
You might prefer not to answer this question. Tough luck! Lies of omission are lies too, and you shouldn’t say them.
You might prefer to have controversial conversations in private with people you trust, away from Twitter frenzies and the pressure to dunk on opponents. Tough luck! You see,
the public cost (such as being dunked on) is the correct update from the public
about you holding these positions, and
Without this public ritual, [you] can hold [your] opinion, free of charge.
This may not be what you intended to say in this piece. But it does appear to be what you actually said.
Thanks, this nicely encapsulated what I was circling around as I read it. I kept reaching for much more absurd cases, like “Mr. President, you’re a liar for not disclosing all the details of the US latest military hardware when asked.”
Even aside from that… I’m a human with finite time and intelligence, I don’t actually have the ability to consistently avoid lies of omissions even if that were my goal.
Plus, I do think it’s relevant that many of our most important social institutions are adversarial. Trials, business decisions, things like that. I expect that there are non-adversarial systems that can outperform these, but today we don’t have them, and you need more than a unilateral decision to change such systems. Professionally, I know a significant amount of information that doesn’t belong to me, that I am not at liberty to disclose due to contracts I’m covered under, or that was otherwise told to me in confidence (or found out by me inadvertently when it’s someone else’s private information). This information colors many other beliefs and expectations. If you ask me a question where the answer depends in part on this non-disclosable information, do I tell you my true belief, knowing you might be able to then deduce the info I wasn’t supposed to disclose? Or do I tell you what I would have believed, had I not known that info? Or some third thing? Are any of the available options honest?
What are your...let’s say 5...most controversial political viewpoints that you would get in most trouble (with family/friend groups/employers/government/etc.) for expressing?
You might prefer not to answer this question. Tough luck! Lies of omission are lies too, and you shouldn’t say them.
You might prefer to have controversial conversations in private with people you trust, away from Twitter frenzies and the pressure to dunk on opponents. Tough luck! You see,
about you holding these positions, and
This may not be what you intended to say in this piece. But it does appear to be what you actually said.
Thanks, this nicely encapsulated what I was circling around as I read it. I kept reaching for much more absurd cases, like “Mr. President, you’re a liar for not disclosing all the details of the US latest military hardware when asked.”
Even aside from that… I’m a human with finite time and intelligence, I don’t actually have the ability to consistently avoid lies of omissions even if that were my goal.
Plus, I do think it’s relevant that many of our most important social institutions are adversarial. Trials, business decisions, things like that. I expect that there are non-adversarial systems that can outperform these, but today we don’t have them, and you need more than a unilateral decision to change such systems. Professionally, I know a significant amount of information that doesn’t belong to me, that I am not at liberty to disclose due to contracts I’m covered under, or that was otherwise told to me in confidence (or found out by me inadvertently when it’s someone else’s private information). This information colors many other beliefs and expectations. If you ask me a question where the answer depends in part on this non-disclosable information, do I tell you my true belief, knowing you might be able to then deduce the info I wasn’t supposed to disclose? Or do I tell you what I would have believed, had I not known that info? Or some third thing? Are any of the available options honest?