Uh, "not identical" is not the opposite of "not mutually exclusive."
You said (ellipsis mine):
Are you suggesting that ... "acknowledging a fact" and "whining" can't occur simultaneously?
If they can't occur simultaneously, they would be mutually exclusive, and since that part of your sentence seemed quite clear in intent, I assumed that the "not" in "not mutually exclusive" was a typo.
Still, I should have known better than to use a phrase like "quite the opposite" with you to mean "very different" when the distinction was more orthogonal than literally opposite.
