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?
There are people such as yourself who live by rigid guidelines, there are people such as myself who live by morphing guidelines, and there must be people who live by nothing at all. I don't think one approach to life is strictly better than the others.
That's where I imagine the negativity you experience stems from. I don't know anyone who appreciates the imposition of rules on their lifestyle, regardless of how well you think you've profiled their framework. Especially in a casual setting, most people just want to get along.
My first rule for myself is that I must always acknowledge that I could be wrong. This demands that my opinions remain fluid, because it's not possible for me to be right about everything I think I think I'm right about.
So I think you're wrong, and I think you're making a huge number of assumptions based off of very little concrete evidence.
The negativity stems from seeing the current world of social media, in which people constantly put forth strong moral statements, full of black-and-white thinking and absolute statements--and summarily contradicting the very moral frameworks they purport to uphold in the process of doing so.
And then seeing the hundreds (or thousands, or even millions!) of people agreeing with them, all not sparing a single thought for whether or not they're being internally consistent.
The social world is frothing with righteous hypocrites, and the most frustrating are those who claim to stand for inclusion, positivity, and the denouncement of hatred, while simultaneously being quickest to hate when faced with disagreement.
So, no, I'm not convinced that people "just want to get along". More and more, I think people just want to be "right", without any regard for the truth of the matter.
This is too true, and ive been guilty of being the hater more times than id liek to admit.
And it can earn one a surprising amount of hate because you aren't willing to make exceptions.