Might I suggest if you don't want to open a can of worms, not opening the can of worms.
My moral compass is simple: Help others as much as possible, hurt others as little as possible.
There are times when hurting others is necessary. Hurting Nazis is fine with me, as hurting Nazis helps those they would oppress, and well the Nazis kind of made themselves a target with intentionally horrid behavior. As said earlier, sometimes people will get hurt even by polite education of their wrongs, but it is still necessary to educate people on their errors. Snapping at people doesn't fit into necessary.
There are times in which you can't help others, due to the need to take care of yourself. This is also necessary. If you don't take care of yourself properly, both physically and mentally, you cannot help others.
And I confuse nothing. If people going against social mores hurts someone unnecessarily, then it breaks my moral stance, if breaking the social more does not hurt someone unnecessarily, the social more is unnecessary to follow. (For instance, being gay used to be against social mores, but the only people it "hurt" were bigots who do not deserve to be catered to, and hence, is not necessary to follow). Being rude to people who are doing no intentional harm is unnecessarily hurting people (if you politely told someone they were acting in a privileged and ignorant manner, and they double down on their assholish, they are being intentionally dickish, and go ahead and be rude), therefore I see it as wrong, regardless of what social mores say.
PS: If you don't want to discuss something, don't just cross it out. The idea that that means I then can't respond is basically saying "Hey, I can call you wrong, but you can't respond."