Carolyn Hax: Dinner guest feels ‘censored’ by one person’s no-politics plea

Q: I was at a dinner party last weekend attended by 10 people. When the conversation turned to politics, one of the guests was insistent that she had heard enough that day. We are all nice people and didn’t want to cause her discomfort, so we censored ourselves. But afterward I became resentful, thinking she didn’t have the right to dictate the subject of conversation.

I suppose there are some topics one might be justified in curtailing — gossip, overt sexual or gruesome things. But we are all politically active people, and I would have liked to have heard what others had to say.

What could I have said to her that wasn’t rude to explain that her dictate was hurtful to me? Should I take her aside someday to tell her how the incident affected me, or wait until it happens again? And then what should I say?

— R.

A: Under normal circumstances, I might agree with you that it’s presumptuous of one person to shut down an entire topic for the other nine people. (I’d be even more amenable to the idea if it were *frustrating* to stop vs. “hurtful” to “censor.”)

But circumstances are so abnormal that this is the paragraph where I’d explain how abnormal they are, and I’m confident I can skip it.

(And give that dinner guest a medal. And a hug.)

What you do about her now is: nothing. Show some mercy, override the impulse to correct her, and eat your one disappointment.

What you could have done in the moment, and what you can do if someone shuts you down with any frequency, is start with sympathy for the overwhelmed, bottom bun: “I understand hitting a saturation point” or similar. Next, the meat of your counterpoint: “But we are all politically engaged — and nice people, too! So call me an idealist, but I think talking with this group might help.” Next, more sympathy, top bun: “But I hear you and won’t press it.”

Use your own words, of course — but no matter how you phrase it, I am scripting you in all versions not to push it/force it/make a big stink about it/hijack the conversation over someone else’s objections.

For one thing, the unwritten rule not to talk politics at social events is there for truly noble reasons. Is “delubricating” a word? Political talk is socially delubricating. It’s a lye bath. So if your group isn’t 100% game for the topic, then back off and let people enjoy one another.

And, too, there’s the separate issue of someone emotionally crying for help at the table. Let’s say the topic isn’t a source of Orwellian reflux like current politics, but instead something more neutral, like middle management. One person says, “I have heard enough today, please no workflow talk” — when, alas, you arrived at the party wanting to strategize. Are you really going to die on that hill and insist your need to circle back must prevail? Or are you going to show a peer some compassion?

This was a dinner party, not a floor speech. The concept of censorship was never in play.

Back to some earlier phrasing: If silencing happens *with any frequency,* then, yes, advocate non-toxically for your topic of choice. Talk privately, even, to a friend who makes a habit of shutting things down.

But one-time party bans on a source of mass exhaustion? Take that win for the team.

• Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com, or chat with her online at 11 a.m. Central time each Friday at washingtonpost.com.

© 2025 The Washington Post