I think maybe one of the primary ways in which I determine the value of someone's ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and so on is their level of curiosity.
It isn't about agreement - though I value and practice bridge creation. I can have a fairly different set of ideological positions, or political opinions, with someone and if they show up with some curiosity in their approach, then I will be interested and feel welcoming. I will see it as an opportunity to lay roads to improve my corner of society that all parties might get something out of it.
Maybe I will learn a new pov or piece of information and find my opinion, and consequently my actions and who I show up to be in this world, changed. That is an exciting thought. It is a delightful experience.
And maybe I will share some pov or piece of information that changes someone else's opinion, and consequently their actions and behaviour in this world - that's exciting too. If I hope to achieve the latter, then I must stay curious
On the other hand, we might disagree AND the person is showing up without a trace of curiosity, and I will be bored, and think it is pointless to continue engaging, wasting precious time and mental resources on something with zero yield.
And many of these times, when I reject further engagement, those very incurious sorts of people (in the instances where we disagree) ostensibly believe it is because of the differences in sociopolitical priorities and beliefs itself.
This is then can be cast in a disagreeable manner, you know, the shaming on "can't handle the "truth" or "disagreeing" desire to "cancel" "can't take criticism / conflict" "the so-called tolerant left aren't so tolerant after all, hur hur, gotcha!"
But why do I owe you my time or effort? Even if I didn't have to cope with a complicated tangled up ball of physical and mental issues, I still don't have an infinite supply of time. Why does anyone owe you attention when you can't even be bothered to show up with curiosity? What is the point?