seems to me like there’s two really different reactions you may be describing:
they start to treat me as if understanding other (conservative) perspectives makes me a traitor
1) tribal bias, aka the “us vs them” paradigm, wherein Identity gets entwined with Opinion and Belief — that is a dangerous worldview which enables Normal People to act like Psychopaths.
what do you think about going Meta at that point — directly questioning the subconscious / tacit posture, totally apart from the cherished Opinion and Beliefs that fuel it?
…or they treat me as if I embrace that view and just argue with me as if I held a perspective that I do not.
2) this smells like the Arena of (Disembodied) Ideas to me: a dispassionate intellectual game, applying natural selection to Opinions and Beliefs: Player 1 selects a View to cast into mortal combat, Player 2 does likewise, Players mash rhetorical buttons until one View or another is K.O.’d. the end result should be that both Players had a Good Time, understand Views better, and / or have improved their game.
problematically, initiating this game and disclosing the rules are rarely made explicit by those that enjoy it. if anyone involved a) did not consent, b) doesn’t know, or c) at any point forgets to regard Views as disposable, inanimate Things, or at any point mistakes the Player for the View, then at least one participant (and probably both, eventually) are not going to have a Good Time.