CheezyWeezle

lmao I’m guessing someone who doesn’t speak Spanish was told “we are out of ice, make a sign that says ‘No ice, no hielo, thanks, management’ and put it on the soda machine” and they just rolled with it phonetically

I never said this was a bad value, but I think we all know that these prices will not remain. They will increase because people will pay it once they are locked in. And if someone buys a used car, they have to pay that subscription to get these features, ensuring the manufacturer gets a slice from used sales. I can understand the cost, but it sets a dangerous precedent. It should be one time fee that grants the VIN access to the severs permanently. What would be really nice is if we had legislation that requires companies with a certain amount of revenue to maintain services for older products so they can’t just pull the plug later anyways.

I can understand some of these features requiring a $5/month subscription. Anything more than that is absolutely insane. With roadside assistance (depending on what that actually entails) I could see that sevice being bumped to $15-$20 a month,

? Does PayPal not allow this? PayPal has always called me “Praxis” lmao

No, I read the “win/win” as listing there only being two possible scenarios. They are saying you either win or you win. “Win/win” reads as “win or win”, so there is your “either… or”, but even then you don’t need to say specific words to be able to imply exclusivity.

Example:
“You must be joking, and if not, then you are a fool” Notice how in that sentence I did not use “either/or”, yet I still implied only two possibilities? Well, that sentence is homogenous to the sentence in OP’s post. I just used “if/then” instead of “either/or”.

The post suggests that there are only two options in the scenario: they are either secretly trans, or they are a bigot trying to belittle and insult trans women. They don’t leave any nuance for a different option. Dare I say that they have a rather binary way of thinking…

I never understood this obviously toxic take… saying that a cisgendered male crossdressing MUST be trans or trans-curious is exactly the same toxic energy as denying trans women’s existence.

Are you folks really gonna say that, for example, Tim Curry is a closet Trans Woman? Because that’s the kind of thing being implied by that. Just let people do what they are gonna do and be what they are gonna be, leave your assumptions and judgements out of it.

Why shouldn’t you ever punch a nazi? Because you might get their nasty blood on your fist. Instead, you should use a baseball bat!

Yeah, it literally isn’t. An insult is not mutually exclusive to a good faith argument, but you wouldn’t know that because you clearly dont understand the concept. Go look up what bad faith argumentation is.

Yeah, because you clearly need it. You dont even know what bad faith is. Bad faith arguing is when you aren’t actually working towards the resolution of the argument, but instead just making frivolous contradictions that you yourself probably dont even believe in, just to try and keep the other side from making a point. Insulting you is not bad faith. So, yeah, go back to school and actually pay attention this time.

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.

Need that one more time? Here ya go

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.

Maybe if you read it ONE MORE TIME it will click for you

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.

Cognitive dissonance is the existence of nonfitting relations among cognition, not the feeling of discomfort arising from that. It is what you are suffering from right now. You have the evidence laid clearly in front of you, but you cherry pick one TINY tidbit and interpret it incorrectly so as to suit your needs. You KNOW you are wrong, and you are arguing in bad faith.

Oh, I see, you’re fucking brain dead. Now this whole conversation makes sense. You literally cannot admit you are clearly wrong. Please go touch grass, you are pathetic.

And I’m saying YOUR usage is the colloquial usage. Just look at the very source of the term, Leon Festinger’s “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” from 1957. here is a link

Chapter 1, page 3.

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right. By the term cognition, here and in the remainder of the book, I mean any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one’s behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction.

He makes it clear that cognitive dissonance is the status of holding incongruous beliefs, NOT the status of discomfort. He states that cognitive dissonance CAUSES discomfort, and that people tend to seek to resolve that discomfort, but cognitive dissonance is not the discomfort itself. It is “the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions”.

The argument against your claims? I’m informing you that cognitive dissonance refers to the simple state of holding incongruous beliefs. Read these, doofus:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive dissonance

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cognitive-dissonance

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001/acref-9780199976720-e-318

Go back to grade school and learn reading comprehension again, please. Just because I said that colloquialisms are descriptive, does not mean that I said that all dictionary definitions are prescriptive. Get your red herring straw man bullshit out of here. You clearly lost the argument if you are at this point.

Where did I say that? Keep your straw men to yourself.

No, that is literally a dictionary definition, not a colloquialism. A colloquialism would necessarily be informal and descriptive, not prescriptive.

You should go back to your quotes, its pretty obvious that we are discussing the idea of holding a belief while simultaneously categorizing that belief as impossible.

cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance /ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/ noun PSYCHOLOGY the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change

Nothing to do with a feeling of discomfort or reconciling the beliefs. Not sure where you got that idea from.

If you accept that your goals cannot be accomplished, why maintain them as goals? If you know it is futile, why bother? It is literally a waste of time at that point.

That said, I personally dont think it is futile. I think it mostly is an attainable goal, minus the withering of the state; I don’t think we could reach a point where the state is completely unnecessary, so I advocate Socialism. I just also think it is ridiculous that someone would try and claim something is futile while simultaneously advocating that everyone adhere to that thing. Their philosophy states clearly attainable, objective goals. If they think it is unrealistic for anyone to ever achieve those goals, then they don’t believe in their own philosophy. That is textbook cognitive dissonance.