[ljm]

It only really works if you can keep it up, because once the curtain drops you could be looking at a level of deceit or betrayal that becomes incredibly difficult to reconcile as the lie becomes more complicated.

I don't think you can call it a burden in that sense if the other person is totally oblivious to it. That's purely a burden of your own creation, because they had no say in it, and you're basically deciding that you don't like the truth, so they won't either, where in reality it could be quite liberating.

In that sense, I don't feel that's quite as compassionate as giving someone the truth and then supporting them through that if they need it; carrying that burden together if indeed it is a burden to them. It might not be.

[Faark]

> [3rd paragraph]

I'd generally agree for functioning humans, but am less sure about older people with deteriorating mental functions. There is likely no getting though it, and I can hardly handle it.

Not when meeting my grandpa on one of his last days before he ended himself a few years ago in what was probably one of his clearer states of mind. Apparently they mostly shielded us from how bad his state was and honestly, I'm fine with that lie. Knowing would probably lead to something better, like some magical cure.

Now my grandma a fall, following operations and a re-occurring delirium/confusional state that doesn't seem to go away. She wants to go back to her home, but that's no option in her state. If a little lie would help keep her stable...

As for myself, I obviously hope medicine & science will make enough progress in the next few decades to spare me something like that. Or to be lucky and not have that problem in the first place. But if it comes to that... I don't know. Maybe just try to keep me happy.

[macspoofing]

>It only really works if you can keep it up, because once the curtain drops you could be looking at a level of deceit or betrayal that becomes incredibly difficult to reconcile as the lie becomes more complicated.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the situation.

>I don't think you can call it a burden in that sense if the other person is totally oblivious to it. That's purely a burden of your own creation

So we can call it a 'burden' - why argue semantics if you agree?

>because they had no say in it, and you're basically deciding that you don't like the truth, so they won't either

Another cynical interpretation. No. That's not necessarily the consideration. That's not necessarily the right interpretation.

> where in reality it could be quite liberating.

Maybe. Maybe not.

>I don't feel that's quite as compassionate as giving someone the truth and then supporting them through that if they need it;

Maybe. Maybe not.

[ljm]

I’ve suffered people who think they’re mind readers and know what’s best for me. Whatever burden they thought I was carrying, they couldn’t have got it any more wrong. Those people stopped being a part of my life when I realised what was was going on, because what I felt was betrayed. My own feelings didn’t matter, it was their feelings about what they assumed about me that were more important to them.

As such, I would favour open communication instead of being ‘protected’. That requires serious trust. And a lot of these games that we play depend on a lack of trust.

There’s nothing cynical about this, we’ve all done things with good intentions in mind only to get bad results. Oftentimes it’s because we’re acting in our own interest and not the person we’re putting it on.

[macspoofing]

It depends. That's all I'm saying here. It is t an absolute answer.