Cognitive Dissonance 2

In our post yesterday, Irony VS Double Standard, one alert reader has this to say: "I know where your friends are coming from ... and I agree with them 100 percent."

"But if you are going to ask me ... there is still a third persona waving, trying to make his presence felt. And that is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

I pause for a while ... (I know cognitive dissonance) - it is the mental discomfort experienced by a person when he is holding two or more contradictory beliefs ... or when his behavior conflicts with his beliefs.

To understand cognitive dissonance in the example of my friends debating, we have to look past the irony and the double standard and focus on the internal psychological conflict of the partisans involved.

Cognitive dissonance is not just "holding two beliefs at once." It is the distressing mental tension that happens when a person's behavior or a new fact clashes with their core identity or their self-image as a "good, principled person."

Here is how cognitive dissonance manifests in yesterday's post:

1. The DDS Dissonance: "I am a seeker of truth and justice" vs. "I support a leader accused of stealing."

• The Belief: The DDS supporter likely defines themselves as a patriot who wants a leader who is tough, competent, and honest about serving the country.

• The Conflict: When they see their favored leader facing credible allegations of corruption or unexplained funds, it directly contradicts the "tough, honest leader" image they have cultivated.

• The Behavioral Conflict: They believe in "anti-corruption," but their political allegiance demands they support a leader who is evading accountability.

• The Dissonance Resolution: To avoid the pain of admitting they were wrong, they engage in justifying their action and resort to rationalization. They don't change their support; they change their reality. They claim the accusation is "weak," "politically motivated," or "fake news." By dismissing the evidence, they eliminate the discomfort and keep their self-image as a "patriot" intact.

2. The Kakampink Dissonance: "I am a champion of due process and consistency" vs. "I am attacking a candidate who hasn't been convicted."

• The Belief: The Kakampink likely defines themselves as someone who values the rule of law, due process, and objective evidence (especially after the 2022 campaign).

• The Conflict: They may feel a pull to aggressively attack the VP because they believe the corruption is obvious. However, their core identity as a "fair observer" or "advocate of the rule of law" reminds them that accusation is not conviction.

• The Behavioral Conflict: They claim to stand for "due process," yet their emotional need to see their political rival brought down causes them to potentially jump the gun or engage in the same "trial by publicity" they previously criticized.

• The Dissonance Resolution: They resolve this by telling themselves, "This is different. This isn't 'trial by publicity'—it's 'demanding accountability.' The situation is so grave that traditional rules of due process don't apply." They rationalize the aggressive behavior as a "necessary evil" to save the country.

Why this is "Cognitive Dissonance" and not just hypocrisy:

• Hypocrisy is when you know you are acting differently from what you preach (you are deliberately being a liar).

• Cognitive Dissonance is when you convince yourself you are being consistent, even when you aren't (you are successfully lying to yourself).

The DDS supporter truly believes they are defending the country against "persecution," even if they are ignoring evidence of theft.

The Kakampink truly believes they are fighting for "the truth," even if they are adopting the same aggressive tactics they once decried.

The anger, the defensiveness, and the urge to "attack the other side" rather than engage with the facts are all symptoms of a brain trying to protect itself from the horrifying possibility: "What if I am wrong about my team?"

The next time you see this exchange, remember: They aren't just arguing about politics.

They are both running away from the internal discomfort of realizing that their political idols—and their own principles—might not be as perfectly aligned as they thought.

Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.

Irony VS Double Standard

Our group was in our usual selves of mindless scrolling on our FB pages today, and we stopped our compulsive flipping when we saw the post of Atty. Race del Rosario RN.

DDS: "Namimigay lang ng P500 fuel subsidy si Leni, gagawin ninyo agad, Presidente."

Kakampinks: "Nagnakaw na si Sara ng P448 million, gagawin ninyo pa ring presidente?"

My friends reacted right away.

Friend A: "This is IRONY of the highest order."

Friend B: "I'd rather call it a DOUBLE STANDARD.

There we go again... my friends are fighting over a "Two-for-One Special" of stupidity. 

Sino ba ang tama ... sino ba ang mali? O baka naman pareho silang tama ... or parehong mali?

The answer is yes. You are currently witnessing a masterclass in why irony and double standards often hang out together, like two friends at a party who refuse to leave.

So, tama sila pareho? Does that mean irony and double standards are synonyms?

Hindi rin. Pero kalma kayo muna, and we'll try to explain this as simply as possible.

Irony is a SITUATION. It’s the punchline of a cosmic joke - meaning in the chaotic reality of life ... sometimes it plays a trick on us by delivering results opposite to our plans, leading to a profound realization that our human seriousness is actually quite absurd.

There is always that inevitability of contradiction where the universe intervenes to make things turn out the opposite of what is expected, often thwarting human efforts, such as the Titanic sinking despite being deemed "unsinkable".

When you observe a fire station burning down, you’re baffled by the sheer, tragic comedy of the contradiction.

Imagine fire station na nga ... nasunog pa? IRONIC nga.

So how does the exchange between a DDS and Kakampink become ironic?

• The Situation: We have two potential Presidents. One is criticized for giving aid (a gas subsidy), and the other is defended for allegedly pocketing public funds.

• The Irony: It is objectively hilarious that in this country, anything is possible. The act of giving is framed as a liability, while the act of stealing millions is framed as an asset. It’s like a chef being fired for cooking a not-so-delicious meal, while the guy who burned the kitchen down is promoted to Head of Dining.

The irony lies in the unexpected contradiction: We expect the person holding the public funds to be the one protecting the money, and the person offering aid to be commended. When that flips, you have irony because of the contradiction. It is the "Wait, what?" factor.

Now, let us go to Double Standard. A double standard is a moral failure. 

It is not a literary device (like irony); it is a weaponized rulebook. 

It is the "Rules for Thee, but not for Me" policy that governs the hearts of partisan fanatics. How did the exchange between two warring camps become a Double Standard?

• The Method: This is where the fanatical brain does its gymnastics. If you are an opponent, your actions are judged by a microscope; if you are an ally, your actions are judged through a soft-focus lens.

• The Logic:

  • Target A (Leni): Must be a Saint, an Economist, a Legal Genius, and a Mother Teresa figure just to be considered "competent."

  • Target B (Sara): Only needs to exist, have a famous surname, and breathe air to be considered "qualified."

This is a double standard because the metric of measurement changes based on the identity of the person.

It isn't a contradiction of logic (like irony); it is a contradiction of ethics. 

You are using two different yardsticks to measure the exact same thing: Presidential fitness.

Can it be both? Absolutely. 

In fact, most of Philippine politics is a "Two-for-One" deal where you get a Double Standard for the price of one Irony.

Here is why my friends are both right:

The Situation (The Irony): > It is ironic that a country claiming to want "anti-corruption" leadership is actively campaigning for someone accused of budget-skimming, while ignoring the person who actually accounted for her gas subsidies.

The Behavioral Failure (The Double Standard): > It is a double standard to demand "perfection" from the former, while practicing "extreme forgiveness" for the latter.

To put it simply:

• Irony is the observation that the scenario makes no sense. (e.g., "Wow, isn't it weird that we hate people who give us gas but love people who steal our money?")

• Double Standard is the hypocrisy required to actually hold those two opinions simultaneously. (e.g., "It’s wrong when you do it, but it’s a 'strategic necessity' when my team does it.") Example: Duterte's legal team argued that impeachment complaints against President Marcos were dismissed quickly (within three days) for lacking substance, while complaints against her were treated as "established truth even before trial begins".

The reason why my friends are confused is that they are looking at the same beast from different angles. 

One friend is laughing at the absurdity of the scenario (Irony), and the other is furious at the unfairness of the rules (Double Standard).

The next time this comes up, with you and your friends, you can simply tell them: "You’re both right. It’s an Ironic Double Standard."

The Paradox of Madriaga;s Weak Allegation

 

There is a new marathon in Philippine politics. 

And what makes this event exciting is the new gimmick - the goal isn't to reach the finish line, but to see how fast you can disappear when someone asks, "Where did the money go?"

It was an ultra-bright idea in defensive strategy. 

The Office of the Vice President has looked at the accusations brought forward by Ramil Madriaga—accusations they claim are "weak," "inconsistent," and "full of holes"—and concluded that the best way to handle these "weak" arguments is to… run away from them as fast as humanly possible. 

If the case against the OVP is as flimsy as the plastic on a bag of Piattos, then why is the defense team acting like they’re being chased by a SWAT team?

• The Logic: "The allegations are garbage! Madriaga is a liar! The ink is the wrong color! The painting is a fake!"

• The Action: "Please excuse me, I have a sudden, urgent appointment in an undisclosed location for the next three to five years. Shimenet!"

In any other professional setting, if someone accuses you of wrongdoing and you have the "truth" on your side, you hold a press conference. 

You present the evidence. You act like a lawyer. 

But in the OVP’s version of governance, "Clearing your name" is apparently a synonym for "cordon sanitaire," a guarded line preventing anyone from leaving an area infected by a disease. 

In OVP parallelism ... maintaining Sara's image immaculately clean ... by preventing anyone from throwing mud.

Let’s talk about the elephant (Piattos) in the room. 

The Commission on Audit (COA) is losing its mind trying to find a human being named "Mary Grace Piattos," and the OVP’s explanation is… silence. 

Or, if they do speak, it’s the state-of-the-art in obfuscation.

It’s truly a spiritual mystery. The fact that a sitting Vice President cannot—or will not—identify a major budget recipient is not a "clerical error." 

It’s an admission that accountability is currently under maintenance.

Only the Dutertes in the annals of Philippine politics have the temerity to look the other way when confronted with a difficult question.

We used to have litmus tests for what a politician should look like when they’re under fire, and you will not believe what history has in its records.

• Trillanes faced jail. He didn't ask for a "time-out" because of the blatant calls of foul.

• De Lima faced her accusers in court. She didn't blink or hide behind "confidential" technicalities.

• Robredo and PNoy were placed under the microscope and intense scrutiny, SAF44, Dengvaxia, and endless attacks. Did they skip hearings? No. They showed up, answered questions, and defended their actions.

That was the Standard. It wasn't about being perfect; it was about being present.

It was not about protecting your immaculately white facade ... people already thought the worst of them ... baka hindi nila alam?

But now? We’ve traded that standard for a new, "Cult-Like" model:

1. If it’s a political opponent: "HANG THEM! CRUCIFY! IMPEACH!"

2. If it’s a Duterte: "Leave them alone! It’s a distraction! It is political persecution!"

Here is the satire of the moment: 

The bar is currently so low that it’s buried in the Earth's crust. We are so starved for basic competence that if the Vice President simply showed up, acted like a lawyer, provided actual receipts, and defended the country’s sovereignty without playing the "I'm a victim" card, the opposition would be so shocked they’d probably start cheering for her.

We aren't asking for a saint. We are asking for a public servant. But instead, we are being fed a diet of "Shimenet" and "I took-I took."

Political maturity begins when we stop asking, "Is this my team?" and start asking, "Is this right?" 

The OVP’s silence isn't a strategy; it’s a loud, booming declaration that they have nothing to say that can stand up to the truth. 

If you have to choose between loyalty to a surname and loyalty to the Republic, and you pick the surname every single time, you aren't a public servant. 

You’re just a fan in a very expensive, very taxpayer-funded stadium.

In 2026, you can be a competent leader or a cult icon. But judging by the current OVP playbook, you can't be both.

Why Crises Are Only Crises When Sara Is In Trouble

 

Something new is being taught in the Senate - the School of Selective Urgency, where the curriculum is flexible, the history books are written in disappearing ink, and the definition of a "National Crisis" changes faster than a vlogger’s opinion on a painting.

We are currently witnessing a breathtaking performance by Senators Robin Padilla and Imee Marcos, who have suddenly pivoted from "Lawmakers" to "International Relations Experts." 

Their main concern? An impeachment hearing during a global crisis (the tensions between the U.S. and Iran).

"How can you afford to do an impeachment in the middle of a crisis?" they ask, with the somber faces of people who have never, in their entire careers, witnessed a crisis before. 

It’s touching, really. It’s almost enough to make one forget that we live in a country where "Crisis" is essentially our middle name.

We almost believed them—we really did!—until our memories kicked in.

Cast your minds back to the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Remember that? 

A tiny, invisible virus that brought the entire world to its knees. Did our leaders suddenly clutch their pearls and cry, "Oh, heavens! We cannot have a crisis during a crisis! Let us not distract the people with a network shutdown!"

Of course not! When PRRD decided to pull the plug on ABS-CBN, the "Crisis Timing" rule was mysteriously suspended.

 Apparently, shutting down the country’s largest news and entertainment source during a lockdown—stripping thousands of jobs and depriving the public of information—wasn't a "distraction." 

It was just a bit of "spring cleaning" for our airwaves.

Back then, the crisis was apparently the perfect time to settle political scores. 

But today? Today, an impeachment is a "crass distraction" from a war happening thousands of miles away.

And let’s talk about the Vice President’s travel schedule, shall we?

We’ve all played the game: Typhoon hits the Philippines, the country is underwater, and the VP is… Checking the departure boards. 

For the average Filipino, the option during a typhoon is "Stay and suffer." For the VP, the option is "Stay or Leave?" And guess what? 

The frequent flyer miles don’t lie. When the winds are howling, and the relief goods are needed, she has mastered the art of vanishing into the sunset, leaving us to wonder: Does she care? 

But heaven forbid we try to impeach her during a "crisis."

 Apparently, the sanctity of her office is far more sensitive than the sanity of the Filipino people during a natural disaster.

The sudden evolution of Robin and Imee into "Concerned Humanitarians" is a masterclass in satire.

• Robin, the Action Star: Who would have thought he’d become the primary defender of "Legislative Calm"?

• Imee, the Historian: Who would have thought she’d become the arbiter of "Proper Timing"?

They claim impeachment is "politically inconvenient" during a crisis. 

Let’s translate that: "It is inconvenient for US." When the crisis hits the people, it’s business as usual." 

When the crisis hits the ruling family, it’s a "Global Emergency that threatens the Republic."

The lesson here is simple: In the Philippine political ecosystem, a "crisis" is not an objective reality. It is a Political Accessory. 

You wear it when you need to delay an impeachment hearing, you ignore it when you need to shut down a network, and you pack it in your suitcase when you need a vacation abroad.

If you want to know if you're living in a crisis, just check the political alignment of the person in the hot seat. 

If they’re a Duterte, it’s a "Time for Unity!" If they’re an opponent, it’s "You're On Your Own."

The I Don't Know Him Strategy Is Ill Advised

 

Who was the culprit? Who among the Dream Team Lawyers advised VP Sara to deny that she knew Ramil Madriaga?

Why ... because he deserved to kneel in a sack of mung beans, (a punishment some parents resort to when their children start defying house rules)

The I Don't Know Him " strategy was ill-advised; for a change, Sara should have admitted she knew Sir Ram since way back when.

Starting the impeachment proceeding with a LIE ... is a masterclass in How To Ruin Your  Name and Your  Own Reputation right away.

It is not merely a blunder ... it's akin to setting fire in your name while simultaneously inviting the whole world to watch.(Hindi mo siya kilala ... pero kilala pala?)

The I Don't Know Him Strategy (also known as Strategic Amnesia Defense) is a legendary tactic ... but it can backfire.

It is a simple, elegant move: when a witness or an associate starts singing too loudly about sensitive topics, you simply look at the camera, tilt your head in adorable confusion, and declare, "I don't know who that is. 

Was he the guy who delivered the snacks? I think I met him at a gala? No, wait, I’ve never seen him in my life."

The confusion is a classic move, and Sara's lawyers should have known that in 2026, it is the political equivalent of trying to hide an elephant in a glass house.

It is a TRAP ... for crying out loud.

Why do politicians deny knowing people like Ramil Madriaga? It’s rare because they actually have amnesia. It’s because the link is the liability. 

If the VP acknowledges, "Yes, he was a loyal aide or associate," then suddenly, every action he took becomes her action. 

The denial is meant to act as a firebreak—if she doesn't know him, she can't be responsible for his "confidential" activities.

But there’s a fatal flaw in this strategy: The Filipino netizen individually is the culprit, being the internet's inquisitive detective agents. 

The moment a politician says, "I don't know him," the Filipino public hears, "Challenge Accepted." 

By denying the connection, the VP didn't kill the rumor; she doused a gallon of gasoline in it enough to cause a firestorm. 

By denying the connection ... she turned the information into a national treasure hunt.  Or was it the Easter Egg Hunt?

-The Denial: "I have no relationship with this man."

-The Public Response: "Oh really? Let’s check the Facebook photos from that 2021 town hall. Let's check the background of that video from the 2022 campaign launch. Let's ask the PSG if they recognize his face."

It is the Streisand Effect on steroids. If she had just said, "Yes, he was part of the team, but he went rogue," the story might have died in a day. 

Instead, by denying a provable connection, she essentially handed the public a magnifying glass and invited them to inspect every frame of her digital existence.

Now, the "feast" has begun. Every photo that surfaces of the two of them together—smiling, shaking hands, attending the same events—doesn't just prove they know each other. 

It proves something much worse: That the Vice President is willing to lie about obvious, verifiable facts to save her skin.

• When you admit a connection: You look like a politician with a messy team.

• When you lie about a connection: You look like a politician with a messy conscience.

The public doesn't care as much about the connection itself as they do about the blatant denial. 

It transforms a "political scandal" into a "character flaw" exhibition. 

Now, every time Sara speaks, the audience isn't listening to the content; they’re playing a game of "Spot the Fib."

It’s a bizarre gamble. Does the OVP really believe that in 2026, with every citizen carrying a high-definition camera and every event captured on someone’s livestream, they can just "wish" a person out of their history?

By trying to scrub Ramil Madriaga from her memory, the VP has only managed to paint a target on her own back. 

She wanted to avoid the "guilt by association," but she ended up with "ruined credibility by denial."

The Moral of the Story: If you’re going to be a politician, have a better filing system for your memories. 

Because in the age of viral receipts, the most dangerous thing you can do isn't to know the wrong person—it's to pretend you don't.