Personal essays
Rules for conversations for breaking and leading with politics.
Rules
In the middle of an article I mostly agreed with on permission to not (always) talk about politics, was a sentence that I objected to so strongly that I hit “reply” and wrote an email to the author.
A couple of minutes my email came back with a note that replies weren’t allowed unless I joined some community.
I could have sent the email to the author directly - but I decided to let it go.
Lesson one - perhaps if you wait a bit you won’t feel so urgently about sending whatever message you thought must be sent.
Lesson two - there are rules to every interaction.
It reminded me of the card game Spades.
Four people play and their goal is to predict how many rounds they will win and then they and their partner need to win at least as many as the two of them predicted.
All of the cards are shuffled and dealt so you look down at your thirteen cards and try to decide.
Suppose you play first. You can play any card that is a club, heart, or diamond. You can’t start a round with a spade unless someone else has played a spade in the course of the game.
It sounds complicated. You’ll catch on.
Suppose, then, you play the nine of clubs.
“Daniel,” you say, “that’s a horrible card to play.”
Sure, but I’m explaining how the game works and I’ll bring it back to our rules in a minute.
Following suit
Because you played a club, every other player has to play a club if they can. The person that plays the highest club, wins that round and starts the next round.
What if another player doesn’t have a club?
Well, then they can play a card of another suit.
Any other suit?
Any other suit - but here’s where things get interesting.
If they play another suit that isn’t a spade, their card can’t possibly win. It’s as if it doesn’t count at all.
That’s what made me think of this card game when my email came back to me.
The author had led with nine of clubs and I’d responded with the King of hearts. It didn’t matter that I’d played such a high card - it was in the wrong suit. I wasn’t a member of their - um - club so my card wasn’t even considered.
What about in an in-person conversation. Someone says something. You add something relevant. Everyone nods.
Then the person to your left says something off-topic that has nothing to do with what you’re talking about. People look puzzled but no one latches on to this new topic.
The final person in your group ignores them and returns to the current topic and makes a great point. They take the round.
Trump cards
The other option, if a player can’t follow suit, is to play a spade.
A spade trumps all other suits.
That means that a two of spades beats my nine of clubs.
Once someone has played that two of spades, the next person still needs to play a club if they can.
The two of spades will win the round but the rule is you still have to follow suit if you can.
If you have no more clubs then you can play a higher spade if you want and then you will win the round.
Once anyone has played a spade, all bets are off. Anyone can now start off a round with a spade.
Anyway, I’ve been thinking about this game with regards to conversations both online and in person.
What if playing a spade is the “WTF is going on now” followed by deportations, silencing and shutting down science, civil rights, and so much of what we value in this country.
What if we can’t raise the topic of politics until we just can’t follow suit with what’s being discussed?
What if we can’t start a new round with politics until it’s been played?
The spades will all be played - we will get to all of the important political topics - but first we’ll cover all of the important non-political topics and non-important topics that will get derailed when someone plays a spade and takes over the conversation.
Just a thought. Trying to come up with some rules of engagement - at least for myself.
Essay from Dim Sum Thinking Newsletter 253. Read the rest of the Newsletter or subscribe