Without Googling, How Many DUers Know What Rogerian Argument Is?

[ProudLib72]

And those who do, can it be effective at all in today's polarized political environment?

[unblock]

1. how would google know how many du'ers know that???

[rock]

6. Hilarious!

[ProudLib72]

11. Smart ass!

Subject lines are not long enough to be precise with the wording.

[unblock]

16. also, i didn't google it. i used safari

[ProudLib72]

17. At least it wasn't Bing

Isn't "Googling" the same as "Kleenex" now, brand names being used for the generic term?

[liberalhistorian]

20. Bing sucks! It always has the most obscure

results first, all the shit I don't want or need and I don't want to have to wade through a ton of links just to get the very basics of what I need. Maybe google spoiled me in that regard, but it's annoying.

And I'm tired of always getting these fucking surveys from Bing as to why I usually use Google instead.

Sorry, didn't mean to get off on this TJ rant, lol

[ProudLib72]

21. Well this thread has deteriorated

So why not discuss search engines?

I don't like anything other than Google. At work I get directed to Yahoo, and I hate it. Yahoo isn't even that bad, but I'm used to the look and function of Google.

[tblue37]

32. My tablets have Bing as their default search engine. I HATE it! nt

[Raster]

2. Is that "rogering" in the British sense?

And if so, I would say most of us do know how it relates to our current political environment.

[yardwork]

9. That was my immediate thought as well!

Does this mean that my mind is in the gutter?

[ProudLib72]

12. If that were true

Who is screwing over who?

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Nowadays it means

'accept my point of view or go ROGER yourself!' Common ground is scarce real estate in today's political climate.

[milestogo]

4. Well, a Rogerian therapist is relentlessly affirming,

displaying lots of warmth, genuineness, and empathy... and probably rarely arguing with you.

[FBaggins]

5. It's a myth

Therefore it can't be effective.

[Control-Z]

7. Can you name one issue or concern

both the Democratic party and today's Republican party share? I can't. I admit there could be. I'm just unable to think of any at the moment.

[ProudLib72]

15. I thought the same

But considering Rogerian argument was a product of the Cold War, does that mean tensions are higher between our parties than between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War? Now THAT is frightening.

[GusBob]

25. The elephant trophy ban thing just recently

Both sides of the aisle told Trump to stick it

[DavidDvorkin]

8. If w don't know, why shouldn't we Google

before conisdering whether it would be effective?

[jpak]

10. I will roger you roundly

[Generic Other]

13. I know but am way too pigheaded to use one

very often.

[ProudLib72]

18. Even teaching the style in a freshman composition course is tough

People have some pretty definite opinions even when the topics are removed from everyday experience.

[LeftInTX]

14. Never heard of it

[womanofthehills]

19. Does it have to do with the psychologist Carl Rogers?

[ProudLib72]

22. Yes it does. This video is kind of silly, but it explains Rogerian argument

[grantcart]

23. OK I will play 26 for the first question and 17 to the second

Was I close?

[ProudLib72]

24. Nope

The correct answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Not According To Mathematicians

It would 42^2 * e.
Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!

[ProudLib72]

27. Bah! That's just irrational

e to the power of i times pi, now that is something everyone can enjoy!

[ProfessorGAC]

29. You Starting A Fight?

Kidding! Great reply!

[ProudLib72]

35. Euler's identity fascinates me

Irrational and imaginary numbers manipulated to make - 1. On the face of it, it seems fairly basic to generate that formula. But the fact that it works blows me away.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Absolutely!

Some very cool stuff in upper mathematics, ain't there?

[dawg day]

28. I used to teach that as a way to write an "argument" paper

Students loved it. They very much preferred a "coming to compromise" form of analysis than "take a position and batter the other side."

[chia]

30. It's an although-type thesis, conceding or allowing an argument for an opposing view,

before moving on to give reasons why you're arguing against that view.

I remember those from English Composition, and to answer your question in the OP:

It can be effective in some situations, with someone who has any objectivity left in their bones in the post-Trump era.

With people who have no objectivity (and no desire for it), I don't think it's effective. Things are too partisan now and that's to be expected when we're in survival mode. Having argued contra Trump for the past year and a half, I'm just as likely to walk away from a pointless discussion myself, and I know that they have as much chance of changing my mind as I do theirs.

It boggles the mind the way they can believe the lies they're told, and I've come to understand the awesomely terrible power of propaganda and the way it works to control the mindset.

I've often disparaged the conspiracy theories of the right, but sometimes I wonder about my fears of this country being taken down by a corrupt kakistocracy - and every time I tell myself not to give in to fear, I can't help but think of 1930s Germany. Are we canaries in the coal mine as history repeats itself, or am I suffering from Trump exhaustion?

[ProudLib72]

38. I see this all the time here on DU

Posts complaining that people lack critical thinking skills (which includes the ability to remain objective). Common ground means that both sides have some tenable points. But if it comes down to racism, homophobia, and hyper nationalism, how can we accept those as justifiable points for our consideration? There have been a lot of articles posted here analyzing the fear of rural Americans. I think the consensus has been that the fear is irrational and there is nothing we can do or say to mitigate it.

[chia]

41. Here's my experience from the online trenches on a conservative board:

Those who consider themselves moderates (or strive mightily to be nonpartisan) aren't getting anywhere. Their voices, reasonable as they might be, are lost in the bedlam, and while I can appreciate their objectivity, it's not sufficient in a post-Trump world. The breach is too wide and the stakes are too high, and it's time to take a side and take a stand.

(Wait... That's sounding kind of Rogerian. )

I've spent years being an opposing view on a conservative site, and there's been no (apparent) change of view from a single one of the hard alt-right of them since Trump entered the campaign. These people are FOX/Breitbart/InfoWars/Crowder people, and they're so brainwashed. They literally don't care what Trump does. "Trump is gonna Trump" is their attitude, and they really do think he's one of them. And it really IS all about homophobia, racism, and xenophobia, and no. They aren't changing their minds, rationality slides right off of them. Well, I'm not interested at this point in trying to objective, to find a common ground. I took a side and I'm staying on it, and there's no place to stake a flag in the middle.

IMHO the only possible way to bridge the chasm is if war comes to us from the outside; self-preservation of the Union against an enemy from without is the only cause that's large enough to unify. But I'm afraid chances are greater that war will come from within.

[ProudLib72]

42. I agree that is the way with 99.9% of the opposition

What do you think about congress, though? I'm talking about using Rogerian argument to create bipartisan legislation. And I believe this is much more important than getting through to the trump supporters.

It seems to me that, until now, republicans have had all the control, but they have not been able to get much accomplished. They have had their infighting, too. With more Dems winning state elections and the prospect of losing seats next November, maybe, just maybe they will be willing to make some concessions. In other words, I can't see it happening until the balance of power has become equal between the parties, but I can see it as being the best interest of both parties to compromise at that point.

[Kirk Lover]

43. I agree those message board trolls have no interest in any kind of common ground...

they can't even concede that we may have some things in common for example we may both like dogs. So no...all they understand is racist rants and everything else you said above with a heavy heaping of Soros thrown in. So in the absence of civility I troll the fuck out of them and shut them down every single time. EVERY TIME. I'm not sure what I'm going to do when I meet a proper adversary....but hey they are deplorables so it's a good possibility that will never happen.

You are right about the thing that will instantly unify -- that happened after 9/11.

[MountCleaners]

46. If we argue, we are essentially arguing with people who...

....don't accept the Enlightenment foundations of our government.

We have to accept that things have changed. On the right, the fundamentalists and racist extremists have the power. They don't accept reason as the basis for dialogue. They believe that they are acting on God's will.

So, if you're going to argue, you have to start by attacking the theocratic foundations of their beliefs.

[ProudLib72]

47. You've brought up a good point

Religious belief and reason do not go well together. I tell my students they are not allowed to argue using religious beliefs as support.

A political leader with half and ounce of integrity would never try mixing his/her religious belief with their political agenda. tRump has capitalized on doing just the opposite, and these weirdos he puts in positions of power do the same.

[AllaN01Bear]

31. never heard of it untill this thread. sounds like nonviolent conflict / resolution to me .

[jberryhill]

33. What do you think the answer is?

[ProudLib72]

36. I'm not sure, which is why I wanted feedback

My point is that Rogerian argument was meant as a means of mollifying the opposition and finding common ground. It was developed specifically in response to the Cold War. Until tRump, I could not imagine a more intransigent set of opponents as the US and USSR.

To continue the discussion, I should ask, Is it more or less difficult to arrive at compromise with a different country or with your neighbors? And on that one I would argue that physical distance, I believe, allows for cooling off. It's kind of like the kids who are fighting being sent to opposite corners of the room.

[Kirk Lover]

44. I know you know because you're a smarty pants !!!! )

[JHB]

34. No. Not until the conservative power base is broken and staring into oblivion...

...and they have too much goddamn money for that to happen quickly.

[X_Digger]

37. No. It's specious 'both sides' bullshit. n/t

[ProudLib72]

39. It's some hippy dippy bullshit?

Maybe. I think it has its place in theory, forcing students to consider all sides of an argument. In the real world, however, you may just be right.

[Kaleva]

40. Never been a fan of the Star Trek franchise