A little Background first: Due to events in my past I am very self aware and practiced a lot, trying to understand motivations of others without letting my personal views/motivation induce bias into that thought process.
I dare to say I became very good at this, and am able to just on the run initiate a thought process, totally detached from my own views1.
I am someone who likes having discussions. Be it political, philosophical or what ever else I feel like.
In such discussions it often happens that someone says something like:
I can't see why anyone would want/expect/support/[...] that.
And this is a sentence I often hear and that somewhat triggers me. As I find it intolerant. So I usually, either already have a few examples of why an fictitious person would, or it takes me just a few seconds to set my self into a fictitious person and finding reasons why someone would. And then I just come up with that explanation. The point is, the easiest views to come up with, are the most extreme, as they usually have their origin in fears of what ever. So most often my responses go along lines like:
Well, I could see, that an [arbitrary extremist] would want/expect/support/[...] that, as imagine you would...
And then I start explaining the view point with the given influences such a person would have, and after that I keep having the discussion from this fictitious persons point of view, as I want the other person to understand, its emotions driving people to such points of view, and you can't take them their fear by just telling them their emotions are wrong. You need to understand their emotions first to be able to make them understand that their emotions are a fallacy.
That in itself is fine I think and I really enjoy having these kinds of discussions.
But what I just figured recently was, that the "Well, I could see, that an[...]" introduction for such a thought experiment seems to not be enough.
As I realized, most people having had such a discussion with me actually think that I am homophobic/left extreme/right extreme/sexist or who knows what other view frames I already presented. And that's the problem, as I am definitely nothing of that.
So, how can I have such discussions, where I detach my own views and adopt the view of a fictitious person and arguing from that perspective, without running risk the other person might assume this actually IS my personal view?
1Having achieved learned this skill, made me also a very tolerant person. And with this I mean not tolerant towards something but to everyone/everything, as I rarely can't find motivations for any point of view. What is part of the reason why the problem of this OP bugs me.