Background

Today, I was in my workplace kitchen where I was having lunch. There were other coworkers having lunch there too. One of them (let's call him Bob) was talking about political stuff and displaying his (extreme) political views that I strongly disagree with.

At some point, I said something to contradict him but immediately realized it was a mistake (because I know from experience that arguing with him was pointless since none of us would have changed their mind). Also, interacting with other people is tiring for me and I really didn't have the energy to argue with anyone. So after, he started to respond to me, I just stopped him and said:

Forget I said anything, I don't want to talk about that.

Bob tried to keep responding to me but I interrupted him a second time:

No, no, I don't want to talk about that with you, just forget that I am here and that I said anything.

At this point, Bob did what I asked and turned to the other coworkers in order to continue the conversation.

The situation

Not soon later, a new coworker (Alex) entered the kitchen and sat next to me in order to eat. Bob was still displaying his extreme political view and I was uncomfortable because I didn't want Alex to think that I agreed with Bob (because, when you don't say anything, people might think you agree with what is being said).

However, arguing against Bob wasn't an option (for the reasons already explained).

Question

How could I have made it clear to Alex (maybe non-verbally) that I did not share Bob's views?

Note that, since this was a workplace situation, I didn't want to be more rude than necessary (which I feel I already was when I strongly refused to talk politics with Bob).

Also, I'm on the autism spectrum which means that my non-verbal communication might have been misinterpreted as me agreeing with Bob (or not really disagreeing with him).

Notes and clarifications

• I don't want a way to tell Alex, after the fact: "I don't share Bob's views". I want a way to make Alex aware that I don't share Bob's views, during the facts (because I only see Alex during lunch and coming back to this "incident" after that would be weird. Also, I don't want to be bothered about that all day).




• I don't think that Alex shares Bob's views (but I don't really know for sure).




• I would rather avoid a solution that would require me to have a long, in-depth conversation with Alex about Bob's views/this particular political subject.




• Culture is France but answers don't need to be limited to this country.




• When I arrived in the kitchen myself, Bob was already talking and if someone hadn't contradicted him on a specific (very racist) point, I would have been very worried that everyone was agreeing with Bob (on this very racist point). When Alex arrived, there was no one who was currently contradicting Bob (they all decided to go silent) and the only person making conversation with Bob was ok with what Bob was saying. So, in this situation, if I had been Alex, I would have been worried that everyone was agreeing with Bob.




• Even if Alex might have not interpreted my silence as me agreeing with Bob, the idea that this could have been the case was making me uncomfortable (I'm on the autism spectrum, so my non-verbal language could have been "off" and lead people to think that I agree with Bob).

I don't think you need to be concerned about this issue, which is great because I don't know of a natural way to do this. It's odd to demand that everyone be aware of views you hold just so they know what views you hold.

I guess this is a frame challenge. I think that it's unlikely that Alex would think you share Bob's political views just because you were nearby while Bob was talking at your office. I also think that it's irrelevant what Alex thinks of your political views based on such an insubstantial observation.

Why doesn't informing people "in the moment" work?

There are a couple of reasons. First, if Bob is rambling on about a political topic, and you interrupt him to make your own position known (making sure everyone in the room is aware you don't share Bob's views), you are implicitly countering Bob's position and arguments (if any). By saying you have a different position that you think is correct, you are saying that you think Bob is wrong.

That's not a big deal, but the natural follow up to that would be to discuss the issue. If you, personally, don't really want to do that, then fine. But it's not a good interpersonal skill to assert that others are wrong, to their face, and then refuse to explain why that is true or why a better position exists.

Further, because the problem you are worried about seems so unlikely it will seem mysterious why it's so important to you that everyone knows you disagree with Bob (again, it's far from automatic that people would assume you agree). It's sort of like a (made up) situation where Bob comes in with a new haircut, and you make a point of telling everyone that you think Bob is not attractive. Since there's no reason people would make such a specific assumption to the contrary (Bob's new haircut doesn't say anything about you or your preferences), it's bizarre to make such a blatant statement, and the perceived effect would be an insult to Bob (since you're criticizing him to no particular purpose).

Political discussions are usually about the issues being discussed, not the people who are talking. When Bob is describing what he thinks is true about the world, your counter with something that's true about yourself and your views is off-topic. It will always seem like you are either engaging on the issues (in seeming bad faith, if you're unwilling to discuss) or are levelling a personal insult against Bob. It will never seem like you are just making your position known so much as seeming like you want to point out that you think Bob is wrong, without any elaboration or opportunity for Bob to defend his position (which he is presenting without any implications about your own beliefs). There is no non-rude way to do such a thing, and that's true no matter how you try to express the information (verbally or otherwise).

What can you do instead?

You can physically separate yourself from Bob. Even if there is some possibility that people will assume you share his views (which, again, I think is overblown here), that's far less likely if you're at a different table on the opposite end of the room.

A good option, which I have used in workplaces, is simply to ask that he not talk about politics and thereby elide the issue. There are a lot of ways to do that, and I can't predict how Bob will react without knowing him, but something like

Let's keep things professional and not discuss charged political topics in the office. We all have to work together, and going on about contentious topics doesn't make that easier.

This may or may not work. If following/discussing/ranting about politics is Bob's only hobby, and he's passionate about it, he may not be inclined to stay quiet. Unless there's an office policy against discussing politics (and which you care to see enforced), you probably can't make him stop.

If you simply must do this, you can quietly mention your disagreement to Alex.

As described above, I really feel that this is not necessary. But if 100% of your objective is to make sure that Alex knows you disagree, you can quietly tell him so. Lean over and, in a low voice, say something like

I don't agree with Bob here, but I really don't want to get into a whole discussion with him about it.

Make no mistake: this is a bit weird, and will seem even more so if you are seated at a table with Bob, or are near enough that he might overhear you saying it. But the weirdness comes from the situation, in which you want to make the fact of your views known just so that people know it.

You can't have it both ways: expressing your political views requires you to actually express them, and doing so in contradiction of someone else (who is physically present and will observe your reaction) will almost always read as part of an issues-based discussion. Expressing your views in contradiction to Bob's is inherently participating in the discussion, so you can't really do that and avoid discussing.

Satisfying all of the preferences expressed in the question flouts many norms of conversation and social engagement, in service of a goal that seems unnecessary.

Personal experiences

As mentioned in comments, it's hard to observe a norm in any kind of decisive way. But I know a lot of people who are politically interested but not especially politically engaged. They (variously) watch news programs, read news blogs/Twitter accounts/newspapers/etc., and have well-defined opinions and positions on major political topics.

However, these particular people do not put much emphasis on learning or building arguments for their positions. This has described myself as well on some occasions, though the worst of it was in years past (I'll blame youth and being too immersed in news sources that were ultimately shallow ones, but that's tangential).

The result is that, when they feel it's appropriate to speak up, they can mostly only express their positions, and generally are not able to defend them very well or persuade others to believe what they believe. Their inability to discuss the issues in any substance all but guarantees that a conversation on those topics will go nowhere-- what other result could there be, when all they can express is the fact of their belief?

The specific techniques that I use when such a person brings up a political topic, or otherwise tries to engage in a political discussion, varies depending on the specific people involved (some people are very resistant to being redirected, for example, and some can't handle confrontation or having their ideas interrogated).

But in all cases actual discussion of the topic fails, because the only things they can really express on the subject are:

1. that they have an opinion


2. What that opinion is

So when they express their views, conversations either move on (essentially ignoring their comments), make a perfunctory acknowledgement that their opinion exists (and then move on), or become trapped in a cycle of trying to get more information than the person can express (if they don't know an argument that leads to their conclusion, they can't express it or respond to other arguments; all they can do is reiterate that they have an opinion and restate what that opinion is).

Because expressing only the fact of your view is a conversational dead-end, it's basically a non-sequitur. One of the general assumptions in a conversation is that someone making a comment is making a relevant comment (Grice's maxim of relation, if you've studied Pragmatics). These kinds of comments do not respond to previous points, nor do they invite additional input. They are conversation enders, since further discussion is impossible as there is no more information to discuss. Unless someone has asked for an opinion, simply stating an opinion and expressing that you hold it is, by itself, irrelevant.

Politics is a minefield in the workplace, and our hyper-partisan current divide only makes things worse. I am more of a libertarian, which means I really don't agree with either side's rantings.

What I've found works for me is to not engage in silly debates about this. I worked for a while with a former '60s radical, and we both agreed pretty quickly that we weren't going to change each other's mind. From there, it became easy to ask "what do you think of this" and realize that I wanted to understand his thought process, not argue with him. That's one way out of this jam.

The second thing is to be open that "we don't share views, and I hope that we can agree to disagree". If Bob can't handle that when you remain calm and say "hey, let's just disagree here and move on", then there's nothing else you can add to the conversation. With Alex, it's all in your tone. It's not as hard as it sounds to disagree with someone on a topic yet still respect him and that's needed here. "Bob's a good guy; we just look at this differently". That shows your respect for Bob, yet says that you don't agree on this subject. And during the initial discussion, it's easy to say "Bob, I'm going to just say I don't see it this way. I don't discuss politics at work, so can we agree that we disagree?" That's worked for me with my liberal co-workers. (The more conservative ones just aren't as political, so I haven't needed to do this.)

PS. I'd be careful about labeling others "extreme". These days, it seems that the other guy's views (irrespective of what they are) are "extreme" and saying that only makes things worse. Almost no one considers themselves to be extreme, and that labeling doesn't help.

Note that, since this was a workplace situation, I didn't want to be more rude than necessary (which I feel I already was when I strongly refused to talk politics with Bob).

You were a bit rude by dropping in a comment, and then refusing to discuss it further. Generally, when discussing politics, you listen to what the other person has to say, that's proper etiquette:

1. Allow the other person to state his or her opinion – Don’t interrupt – allow others to make their feelings heard.

Then again, you made it clear that your remark slipped out, wasn't intended on being said out loud and that you did not want actually want to participate in the discussion, and Bob did as you asked. You weren't all that rude in your replies, and I wouldn't worry much more about this.

Also, I'm on the autism spectrum which means that my non-verbal communication might have been misinterpreted as me agreeing with Bob (or not really disagreeing with him).

Then let me focus on the non-verbal communication here a bit. As Upper_Case's answer rightfully states, you really don't have to worry much about this issue, but one way to show you're not talking with Bob would be to physically distance yourself from Bob and his conversation, if possible. So, if Bob is already animatedly talking politics when you enter the kitchen, try and pick a different table.

If that's not possible, and you find yourself at Bob's table like today, focus your body language on showing disengagement:

• As for facial expression, a furrowed brow and clenched jaw could be used to express that you're overhearing Bob's conversation, but are disagreeing with what you're hearing. Just don't make it continuous, but more of a short reaction to Bob's louder remarks, if he makes such. If you're continuously wearing the same (negative) facial expression, while you're showing disagreement people will still think you engaged in the conversation. You might have an easier time with the next two points.


• 
  Don't look at Bob or the group of people he's talking with. Instead, try and look around the kitchen, see what other people are doing. One of the important things when having a conversation is eye-contact, but by going even further and not looking at the group but around the kitchen, you give off an impression of being totally uninterested in the ongoing conversation. And by looking around, you might catch the eye of another coworker you can have your lunch with.


• 
  If you can, turn your head or even your body physically away from Bob. That way it becomes even clearer that you're not looking at what's going on, and that you're not passively engaged in Bob's conversation. Don't make this too silly by overdoing it, don't go looking at the wall.


• 
  As for the feet mentioned in that article, I don't think they're really important with regards to a conversation in a workplace kitchen. These are more for when Bob would be facing everyone, like in a lecture.

How could I have made it clear to Alex (maybe non-verbally) that I did not share Bob's views?

As other answers state, I also feel you might be worrying too much here. You don't automatically assume Alex shares Bob's views, you can have a little trust that Alex won't assume anything of you. But you haven't described your body language, so if it was the exact opposite of what I described above, you might have something to worry about. If it wasn't what I described above but also not the complete opposite, don't assume Alex will think you share Bob's views.

I would really stick with the non-verbal communication. I've personally found that if I talked about Bob's political views, and my opinion on it, with Alex, that is usually seen as gossiping. And although I've never done it with Bob still around, that would be even more awkward, especially after you've said to Bob you're not willing to discuss with him. If I'm showing my disapproval of some aspect of someone, without either addressing that with the person itself or focusing the conversation on advice on how to deal with that aspect of that person I disapprove part of, things are seen as gossiping and quite rude.

A remark that carries a message like 'I want you to know that I disagree with what Bob is saying' when Bob is just over there isn't going to work, because it carries the risk that Bob will overhear, feel attacked, and probably won't understand why you don't want to talk politics with him but are willing to state your views to Alex.

You mention you don't want Alex to think you agree, but that you do not know where Alex stands, either. You also mention that you don't want to bring it up with Alex after lunch, that you only see Alex at lunch and no other time. This implies you are not particularly close and this is a work-based companionship. In that case, I think you could approach it one of two ways:

1) Ask Alex for thoughts the next time Bob is talking.

2) Make a generalized statement like "I really prefer not talking about politics at work"

I personally find that completely avoiding conversations about politics at work is best, regardless of agreeing or disagreeing. It will undoubtedly make someone in the proximity uncomfortable (Like you seem to be when Bob is talking). That is also a reason why simply trying to infer to Alex that you disagree with Bob may not be the best action, either. Without more knowledge about Alex's views, you run the risk of alienating Alex if there is an agreement with Bob.

So, the first option would get you a better understanding of where Alex stands first, and the second option would make it clear that you and Alex should continue your lunches devoid of political discussion, and perhaps engaging in conversation that helps you tune Bob out if that is possible.

One of the others answers included the excellent suggestion of sitting in such a way that you are not facing Bob, facing entirely away (back to Bob) definitely sends a subtle signal that you are not interested in what he is saying.

In addition, two other non verbal cues that can indicate disagreement are slight head shaking (meaning "no") and/or quickly rolling your eyes (meaning silly/ridiculous/unbelievable).

While these gestures would be rude if directed at Bob, they are not rude if subtley directed at another listener, out of Bob's line of sight, when Bob makes particularly objectionable points.

These convey that you do not agree and also indicate a bit of exasperation about what you are hearing.

If Bob were to notice and is rude enough to confront you about these subtle gestures, you can play dumb and refuse to engage. Eg "Oh, did I?...."

This is from a Canadian perspective, I am assuming shaking head side to side and eye rolling carry similar connotations in France.