The Marijuana Movement Needs To Learn How To Handle Disputes Better. Why Not Use This Advice?

Just found this, and am going to use it. I’ve been saying a version of this for years — communication is important to get right, and if you can’t repeat what was just said to you, and give the person who said it an opportunity to correct any misinterpretations, then you’re likely going to create more problems than needed.

And there are plenty, of problems.

This quote comes from an English writing book, “Everything’s an Argument,” by Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters.

From page 126 of the EAA book:

“In trying to find an alternative to confrontational and angry arguments like those that so often erupt in legislative bodies around the world, scholars and teachers of rhetoric have adapted the nonconfrontational principles employed by psychologist Carl Rogers in personal therapy sessions. In simple terms, Rogers argued that people involved in disputes should not respond to each other until they could fully, fairly, and even sympathetically state the other person’s position. Scholars of rhetoric Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike developed a four-part structure that is now known as Rogerian argument:

1. Introduction: You describe an issue, a problem, or a conflict in terms rich enough to show that you fully understand and respect any alternative position or positions.

2. Contexts: You describe the contexts in which alternative positions may be valid.

3. Writer’s position: You state your position on the issue and present the circumstances in which that opinion would be valid.

4. Benefits to opponent: You explain to opponents how they would benefit fro adopting your position.

The key to Rogerian argumentation is a willingness to think about opposing positions and to describe them fairly. In a Rogerian structure, you have to acknowledge that alternatives to your claims exist and that they might be reasonable under certain circumstances. In tone, Rogerian arguments steer clear of heated and stereotypical language, emphasizing instead how all parties in a dispute might gain from working together.

— Page 126, “Everything’s an Argument,” by Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters. Buy the book here!

Decriminalize Davenport, an organization that attacks Trump supporters or Republicans, will never be a true force for social change unless it first utilizes this way of dealing with disputes, and then also, see that strength in numbers requires bipartisanship. Unfortunately, they want to be criminals, instead of scholars, so I highly doubt this kind of dispute resolution process will ever be employed by the Brian Wingert psychopath that runs Decriminalize Davenport through the usual criminal repertoire of rumors, lies, and false accusations. Luckily that damage has been controlled for 2020, and has not gotten through to any media or supporters of marijuana reform. Keep Decriminalize Davenport under lock and key. If they refuse to engage over half of the populace out of hate, anger, and envy, then let them die on the soil they plant their flag. Very disappointed this is even needed to be mentioned, normally it’s just ignored.