That sort of reasoning is just blatantly fallacious all the way through. One can be angry, annoyed, or irritated at something without it being a “threat to their worldview”, whatever the hell that even means. And completely independently of the “strength” of their case. For one, you might consider certain behaviors unethical, yet without being any sort of “threat” to what you believe, or without their case being strong.
I happen to consider racism very bad, and most forms of it make me outright angry. And yet nothing about any case you might make for racism seems to me at all “strong”. There can be no actual justification (neither strong nor weak) for treating other human beings in the way some racists want to (treat others as less than animals, of zero moral worth). Even if they were in some alternate reality really right that some “races” were “inferior” to another on whatever physical or cognitive measure, that still wouldn’t justify racism. Their best case cannot amount even to being weak. It is non-existant. And yet it pisses me off.
I happen to think any sort of crankery and fraudulence is unethical, and it makes me somewhere between sad, irritated, or angry, depending on the particular case, that the world is so chock full of frauds and charlatans, sociopaths, or just plain crazy people, who mislead so many others with their nonsense. The fact is one can have a general problem with the spreading of falsehoods and misinformation of all types, both big and small.
Why do you make such basic errors in reasoning on this subject?