Dear Crucial Skills,

How do you respond when someone labels or insults people for voting for a specific candidate—for example, implying they’re immoral or unintelligent? This approach often shuts down discussion and discourages people from speaking up to avoid conflict.

Signed,
Shut Down

Dear Shut Down,

Let’s be honest, political conversations today often feel like no-win situations. You start out trying to have a rational discussion about an issue (immigration reform, defense spending, climate policy, etc.) and suddenly—boom—you’re being told you’re heartless, brainwashed, or morally bankrupt.

I’ve been there. In fact, this exact thing happened to me a few months ago with some of my closest friends. It’s frustrating and exhausting. But before we talk about what to do when this happens, I want to talk about why it happens.

Why This Happens

We care. That’s the root of it. We care about our country, fairness, rights, and people’s well-being. But caring can easily morph into something more dangerous: moral framing.
When we label someone as a “partisan hack” or an “extremist,” we stop seeing them as a human being with a different point of view—we start seeing them as the villain. A villain who is a threat to our most cherished values and beliefs. And once someone’s a villain, contempt becomes easy. We justify our eyerolls, our sarcasm, and eventually, our silence or attacks.

But here’s the thing: you can’t have dialogue with someone you’ve decided is evil. You can only fight them.

What to Do Instead

Name It

Don’t sit silently when someone attacks or labels you. Silence sends the message that it’s okay. You don’t have to fight back—just name what’s happening.

“Hey, when you said people who share my opinions are ignorant, that didn’t feel right to me. I get that you’re passionate, but I’d rather we talk about the issue, not each other.”

That simple nudge re-centers the conversation on respect.

Take It to the Next Level

When you’ve had the same frustrating exchange over and over, stop debating the topic and talk about the pattern and relationship.
Use this diagnostic skill: CPR. It stands for Content, Pattern, Relationship.

• Content: the issue itself (taxes, elections, etc.)
• Pattern: the repeated behavior (“The last few times we talked politics, you called people names.”)
• Relationship: how the pattern affects trust (“It’s getting hard for me to want to talk about anything important with you because these conversations don’t feel respectful anymore.”)

When you name the pattern and possibly how it affects the relationship, you move from fighting over opinions to protecting the relationship—and that’s where real dialogue begins.

Set the Rules

Say, for example, you’re in a group chat with friends or coworkers where conversations range from sports to politics. Things are usually fine—until one day, someone starts using harsh labels about people who see things differently. You try engaging on the issues, but it only gets worse. Eventually, someone speaks up and says, “Hey, I like debating these topics, but I don’t want to do it this way. If the conversation is going to go this way, then I’d rather not do it at all.”

That simple expectation can reset the tone. Others might even thank you afterward. If people won’t follow those rules, that’s fine—but you don’t have to play.

Know When to Quit

Sometimes, after trying to shift the conversation, you won’t see much change. In this situation you may find that walking away is the healthy move. You can care about someone and still choose not to discuss topics that consistently leave you angry or drained.

There’s absolutely no shame in stepping away from a toxic political conversation. You’re simply done expending energy on a conversation going nowhere…and that’s ok.

People keep saying our society can’t talk anymore. Prove them wrong. And if you’ve found an effective way to do that, please share it. I’d love to hear your solutions in the comments below.