- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
It is worse. Lies by omission are far more convincing, far more subtle, and their potentiality for harm far greater. People who exercise deception as a way of life nearly always lie by omission, as it gives them an appearance of credibility they can use as currency in the discourses that bring them profit. Lies of omission are the most cunning kind of lies, and the hardest to detect and combat.
The reason lies of omission are more effective is because they take advantage of the receiver's self-deception.
But they are actually far easier to counteract than an outright lie if one operates under the assumption that they have a duty to inform themselves of all of the facts.
Personally, if I fall for a lie of omission, I consider it to be my own fault for not informing myself. Hell, I don't even have to assume that people are dishonest to realize that I should be working to inform myself of the facts because all too often people speak as though they know what s going on even though they are themselves ignorant of the facts.
It's almost impossible to differentiate between a person who is knowingly committing a lie of omission and an ignorant buffoon who fooled themselves into believing that they actually knew what they were talking about. But since both types of people occur in abundance, one should always take an active role in informing themselves.
Another danger is that lies of omission are the lies people who are uncomfortable with dishonesty are likeliest to employ in order to protect themselves from the pangs of conscience. All the benefits of lying with none of the remorse.
If they don't feel remorse for it because they don't believe it is a form of deceit, then they are actively lying to themselves.