Liberal Cognitive Dissonance

Actually it could be both cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a special kind of cognitive dissonance where one person chooses to promote a behavior they do not practice where cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs are the antithesis of actions they chose to freely perform.

https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/education/dissonance.aspx

And your source is what? Where I have linked the APA.

Holy f**k skippy...read the first line in my first response..."actually it could be both cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy"...exactly says the same thing as "we could both be right"...now you accuse me of being selectively dishonest when you ignore the following from the link "Hypocrisy is a special case of cognitive dissonance, produced when a person freely chooses to promote a behavior that they do not themselves practice"...In this case, you said it was hypocrisy and NOT cognitive dissonance, that would depend on the person and their thoughts/actions/ or nonactions

You're so right, your personal feelings on the matter override the American Psychological Association. I'm sure they have total rubes running that place.

LOL...you are dense aren't you? You just refuted the article by a PhD in psychology with nothing but the statements "i have never heard of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance being linked" and "I'm not even sure I agree with the article's defininition...." Like I said, you're probably right, the APA is just a bunch of idiots. They should have called your for input.

I wish to know whose shirts you wear, the brand of your socks, the cigar of your preference, your bra size, and how you manage to never EVER sleep?

Coming up next, the favorite lib chat bot deflection: The citation of "Strawman"

You, muh luv, are sounding more and more like an "engaging" chat bot at every new twist and turn.. (Folks, please take note.. FaceCrap's and Google's algos are failing and falling apart.. efforts to infiltrate ImgFlip is here under your noses..)

Coming up next! :: "You're paranoid!"

See? I've figured out how to trigger BOTS! hehee :)

Give it a break. What is the sound of one fart flapping?

...only the actors, muh luv?

Wouldn't the cognitive dissonance be "You can't do that, it's not okay!" vs "It's okay when I do it"?

It's "simultaneously holding two beliefs which are in direct conflict with each other", by your own words. It is /also/ hypocrisy, obviously.

But the fact is those are beliefs they actually hold.

Crying "whataboutism" is not a defense, it's a non-defense. It's saying "I can't deny your argument so I'm going to ignore it and claim you're the bad guy for making it".

No, it offers a counterpoint to highlight the hypocrisy of the original argument. What should come next is either a rebuttal or a concession of the point.

And my point is, "so what?". Saying "water is wet" doesn't change the argument that you shouldn't get in the bath with a plugged in toaster.

It is, and if it were true, I would concede the point and say both sides need to stop it. (We've had several such conversations, have we not?)

If it were false, at least as far as I knew, I would attempt to refute it.

Ahem.. cough...cough

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/05/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-rashida-tlaib-trump-impeachment-comments/index.html

its now painfully obvious you have no idea what "whataboutism reasoning" is. You seem to be operating under the presumption, as evidenced by the fact you couldnt find the whataboutism in the article, that for a party to be guilty of whataboutism thinking they must start their retort with "what about". This is not how it works at all. Whataboutism is a form of ad hominem attack where the respondent does not address his/her opponents claim but rather attacks their opponent with their own faults in attempt to shutdown debate. This is precisely what AOC did. Sorry you missed it. I think I am going to have to start keeping a running tally of concepts you think you understand when in reality you don't. So far we have cognitivie dissonance/hypocrisy and now whataboutism

For some reason I cannot reply to your most recent comments, so forgive the jumping around..

"However, you did the same thing in this meme (only in reverse), which proves that you are guilty of it as well." It seems to me that you don't actually read your opponents words. I acknowledged this very thing below in the chain here "That said, the meme does appear to give the whataboutist thinking." You really need to pay attention more. This is twice on this thread where you missed my admission of a point you later make seemingly unaware of my prior admission. Earlier you did this as well when you claimed were both right on topic of hypocrisy/dissonance when you failed to see my first line in a response that said "it could be both"

Awww you can't see whataboutism when it's highlighted for you. That's cute.

Awe shucks...and apparently, you have trouble reading as well....or maybe you choose not to read things that impacts your narrative.

The entire details OAC's whataboutism reasoning in light of her colleague's comment.

Again, we have a situation where somebody does not understand a term they are using. In this case liberals set the standard, the standard being "elected officials should not be vulgar." This was freely on display immediately after Trump's election. Here, I have not condemned the Congresswoman's words, I have simply pointed them out, and that liberals are excusing them and in fact turning the argument back to Trump. Countless times today, I have read some incantation of the following: "republicans have no room to talk about civility in public discourse, as Trump has been saying incredibly offensive things." This is the actual "whataboutist" argument, they (liberals) set the standard, then when your own elected officials don't live up to the standard, you turn the argument back to Trump's failure to live up to YOUR standard as an excuse for your official's behavior. This is classic whataboutism. That said, the meme does appear to give the whataboutist thinking.

LOL....how did you not set the standard? Clearly, Trump was elected in spite of his vulgarity. It was your side the decided to set the standard that Trump was unfit for office because of his vulgarity.

Yet, he was still voted in so obviously no conservatives set a standard. Clearly the standard was not the determining factor.

Clearly, you are wrong, as Trump would not have been elected by a majority of conservatives. Your point is nullified by reality.