It is not your dinner. It is everyone at that table's dinner, troll's included. And you seem to be stuck on ejecting him from the table. If the majority of the table agrees with you you can probably shame him into leaving. How are you going to do that if you don't have that consensus or if he refuses? Are you going to get physical?
I would probably try to make him leave first, but failing that, walking away is the appropriate choice. You are passing judgment, in a way, on the whole party when you do this. You are saying that this behavior is not acceptable in your company and if the present company disagrees then this is important enough for you to remove yourself from that company because it is not something you can tolerate.
We cannot force people to be polite or even tolerant. We can choose who we keep company with.
Simply leaving doesn't hold the aggressor accountable for what they've said; I think it should be a last resort.
If you leave, probably there's awkward silence, someone makes a halfhearted joke, and eventually the conversation changes to something else. Out of sight, out of mind.
If you stay and demand an apology politely but firmly, the aggressor is in an awkward position. An apology is something utterly reasonable to demand and there's a lot of social pressure around that, at least if you want to be seen as a (relatively) mature person.
It also gives the aggressor a way to reconcile. They're probably more likely to reflect than if you just flounce; the possibility for further conversation is still there.
Of course, that said, if they apologize insincerely or not at all, there's not much you can do but leave. But you don't want to raise the stakes that high until you've offered some concrete way for the aggressor to end the confrontation.
Oh, certainly. You should first try to hold them accountable. If the rest of the table is more concerned with getting past the awkward confrontation than dealing with the aggressor's behavior, then you leave. I was arguing against this position:
> I see lots of people saying "walk away" -- you're letting the troll win. [..] TROLLS WILL CONTINUE TROLLING AS LONG AS YOUR SILLY CLINGING TO POLITENESS MEANS YOU WON'T CONFRONT THEM.
Walking away isn't just politeness and it doesn't mean you don't confront them. But this type of confrontation is not productive if there is not a consensus at the table. It devolves into the kind of situation that just makes the original victim feel smaller and worse. You end up throwing a tantrum trying to force the rest of the table to punish the aggressor.
Stand up against this kind of behavior, certainly. Hopefully this will give the others at the table courage to denounce it also and make the offender unwelcome. But becoming belligerent and trying to force him to leave, as tiredofcareer seemed to suggest, is not a productive way to handle the situation.
Best scenario is when you call the person out on their remarks and they apologize. Short of that, you hope everyone else makes it socially difficult for them to stay without apologizing. Worst case you leave.
I also strongly disagree with this:
> This isn't like high school where you can just up and walk away and get whispers going in the hallway about what happened at lunch last Tuesday, OMG!
Yes, this is not highschool. We all expect to be more mature than that. If a friend of mine left a dinner saying, "I'm sorry, this behavior is not acceptable to me and I can't stay," that would make me seriously reconsider my position. This person is my friend. I value their opinion. If they are so upset that they feel they cannot in good conscience stay then I must have seriously misjudged the importance of what just happened. That is the reaction you are trying for.
> If a friend of mine left a dinner saying, "I'm sorry, this behavior is not acceptable to me and I can't stay," that would make me seriously reconsider my position.
Because you're rational. Someone who doubles down on a comment about someone's tits being her weather helm for success after being lightly called on it is not rational. You can't put yourself in this guy's shoes, because you aren't that guy. I've dealt with this kind of person before, directly, with significant results.
I, personally, would make a joke at your expense after you're gone and get the rest of the table back on my side. Because I swim in the middle of this moral compass. Something like: "wonder what got under his skin, sorry about the scene, there, guys;" bam, I just got the table back on my side and now you're the idiot. I know this because I've been in this exact situation after I offended someone into leaving my company. Next thing said was "yeah, he's been testy lately, maybe he needs some time alone". We completely forgot about my poor remark that shoved him away in the first place. As much as you'd like to believe you've "sent a message" to me and the other people at the table, we've really said "what a dork" and moved on with our lives with minimal interruption.
Weak people are going to do two things in that scenario: (a) not follow you from the table when you "make your stand" by fleeing, because they're not sure about it, and (b) instantly flop back to wondering what the hell is wrong with you after an ever-so-gentle shove from the original offender in your absence.
Emotional manipulation is comically easy, and after you've worked with typical Silicon Valley types for 10+ years, this is a pretty consistent roadmap.
> Best scenario is when you call the person out on their remarks and they apologize.
I don't understand what you're saying here. I'm positing that you should call the person out on the remarks and demand apology. You say the same thing in this sentence, then spend the rest of your comment explaining how I'm wrong. Making him leave is the last step of my escalation path, which I laid out in the linked comment, which it seems like you didn't read.
> Because you're rational. Someone who doubles down on a comment about someone's tits being her weather helm for success after being lightly called on it is not rational.
This kind of person is not the kind of friend I keep. And anyways, this is more directed at the rest of the table who lacked the conviction to act.
> get the rest of the table back on my side.
Sounds like the whole table is full of people who are not actually my friends and not who I am interested in spending my time with. I am glad to have left.
I read your linked comment. I do agree with you about the first course of action. What do you do when you get step 8 and the person says, "Pff. No, I'm staying." Are you going to forcibly eject them? What if the rest of the table doesn't care enough? Get into a fight?
I disagree with your strong stance against leaving the situation. You characterize it as weak and ineffectual. I call it choosing who you keep company with. I myself am coming up on 15 years as a software developer. Maybe it is a cultural disconnect as I am in Austin, not Silicon Valley, but outside of college I have never been party to an incident as offensive as that described by the OP. I don't work for companies full of people like this, I don't hire people like this, and I don't socialize with people like this. If someone insists on remaining too immature to be respectful and tolerant of other people I do not want to waste my time and energy on them.
> Emotional manipulation is comically easy
This confuses me. I do not know too many people who would be easily manipulated in this way. Certainly not my coworkers. Maybe young kids in their early twenties who have still not figured out who they are.
You shape your society by who you choose to keep company with and by the expectations you place on that company. People in my life know that I will treat them with respect and courtesy and will deal with them honestly. They know I expect the same in return. If the rest of the table sides with the aggressor, or is unwilling to side with me and demand the aggressor apologize then at some point I determine that this is not the company I want to keep and I leave. There are a lot of things I will tolerate, because nobody is perfect--surely I'm not perfect--and people have differences. But a persistent lack of basic respect and civility is something I won't tolerate.
Finally:
> "wonder what got under his skin, sorry about the scene, there, guys;" bam, I just got the table back on my side and now you're the idiot.
This is understandable because we are strangers, but saying this after I left would not likely make me look like an idiot. I am not going to cause a big scene when I leave. I am still going to be polite and leave calmly. It would be hard to label me as testy. In an actual situation I would probably be a little more verbose: "I'm sorry guys, that's not cool/that' not OK/this isn't acceptable (depends on setting). I'm going to head out. I'll see you later. (to the injured party) You want to finish dinner/have dessert/grab coffee at <destination>? (if they say no) OK, have a good night." Then leave calmly.
Ironically, you are causing a big scene when you force conversation to stop until the guy apologizes. If the rest of the table agrees with you, great. I am not saying a big scene is always a bad thing, but if the table doesn't side with you then you look like the idiot. Maybe in their minds they are thinking, "Here tiredofcareer goes again. He's always getting worked up about something. Just give him what he wants so he'll calm down."
I would probably try to make him leave first, but failing that, walking away is the appropriate choice. You are passing judgment, in a way, on the whole party when you do this. You are saying that this behavior is not acceptable in your company and if the present company disagrees then this is important enough for you to remove yourself from that company because it is not something you can tolerate.
We cannot force people to be polite or even tolerant. We can choose who we keep company with.