As someone who has cared deeply about sometimes esoteric things, I've found that caring is actually the shortest path to being _hated_, mostly by other people who care about the same things but for different reasons.
The best thing I did for my own sanity was to stop caring so much.
But this is still the case. One of the things I care the most about is having a consistent moral framework. I care less about the specifics of that framework; everyone's is slightly different, and I think that's a good thing overall. However, I do care that people apply their own frameworks consistently, and when they don't, I call them out on it.
Still mostly just ends up with me on the receiving end of a lot of hate.
Which is ironic, given that in my experience, the worst of it had come from people whose moral framework is presumably incompatible with hate!
I care deeply about that, too, and it's really not healthy for me.
Because, relationships are a two-way thing. If you notice people are being mad at you .. then know that's one of the "two-ways". You are doing something which triggers them. Now I need to be careful of course about victim blaming here, but assume I'm you know a fair and kind person just giving some orthogonal advice :-). I am.
And it's not The World is just against change. It's More often the message, and how it is delivered.
Specifically, it's the emotional weight behind the message. This is where it gets difficult because we're not like trained emotionally, by many of the western cultures.
Briefly, analyze Like, why do you care? Why do you care about the subject that you are saying needs to be changed. And then you can start to think well maybe the way that I care comes out in terms of intonation. Or brevity. Or the way that I cut people off. Or the way that I force the conversation to be focused on my concern. Note here I am transposing me and you.
And of course all of this is just my two cents based upon speculation, so feel free to ignore it :-)
The trouble I have with this advice is that every specific example or suggestion on how to change my message has ultimately boiled down to "soften the message enough that the recipient can feel okay with ignoring it."
But that defeats the whole purpose! If someone is actively entertaining a cognitive dissonance of some kind, "softening" the message merely gives them the "out" they need to continue to hold the dissonance!
Unfortunately, because I've been given this advice so frequently, and because it always ends up being "just don't challenge people", it comes across as rather condescending. I'm sure that's not your intent, but next time, please consider that maybe I've already done that analysis a hundred times over, and still reach the same conclusion.
Perhaps I'm just stubbornly wrong! But I really don't think the issue is that; I think the issue is that we've made it socially unacceptable to call people out for being inconsistent. Just look at what the typical responses to such a thing are: whataboutism, radical generalization, ad hominems, retreat to an echo chamber, the classic gish gallop of tangentially-related things, etc.
Perhaps what we've really made socially unacceptable is the admission of fault?