By definition, my worldview sees me as part of a society of equals. Everyone's needs and emotions matter exactly as much as my own. If two people want a thing and neither has a greater claim on the thing (nobody needs it more), it's shared equally. Fairness and equity define everyday interactions.

The point is, while I may appear or even act arrogantly, my worldview is inherently not. Whether believing in fairness as superior over other things is arrogant in of itself is debatable, but if that is the point you are willing to make then I will leave you to it.

In general it seems like most of the criticism against my perceived “arrogance” seems to be coming from people who 1) don't know me very much and 2) aren't the kind of people who like to have their values pulled into question. Those who call me arrogant all have in common that it is often the most opinionated people and also seem to like to insist on their “authority”, that they don't have to/don't want to justify their views.
Why is this relevant? Because nothing is holy to me. If I see something that I consider wrong, I call it out. Be it the most socially conforming things to call out, or the weirdest things, like calling out the bollock taboos around Incest, I will address things and try to make cases. It's the kind of demographic that likes to go “I have life experience” and “I am an adult, I don't have to justify myself” (both appeals to authority). Life is very easy when you don't have to think about what you're doing, and I am making people think, whether they want it or not. Figure out what you want, run it full steam and then suppress the dissenters.

But then again, maybe my perception is wrong. Maybe I am arrogant. I know I have been very aggressive in the way I present my cases and maybe that at least makes me look smug. Honestly, it probably does. Still, it doesn't feel like I am innately arrogant. It doesn't make sense with how I view myself and the world. Or maybe I am in full cognitive dissonance denial?

No. On average, people are of average intelligence. This applies even to the nuttiest conspiracy theorist, and claiming that someone is stupid really only makes the aggressor look stupid¹⁾. To think of yourself as possessing the kind of knowledge and understanding to comprehend a topic as multifaceted and complicated as human intelligence and going on to make sweeping judgements on a person you barely know (you don't even know yourself enough to make definitive claims on your intelligence) - THAT is arrogant.

This ALSO includes calling people arrogant. When someone says that someone else “is” arrogant, the truth is that they probably mean “that person is acting in a way, right now that appears arrogant to me”. To claim that one truly knows a person well enough to affirmatively be able to state such a thing should be beyond the ability of most people, myself included. That's why the heading of this section talks about “things” that are arrogant, not whether committing these things makes the individual committing them arrogant. An action can be arrogant, and everyone will engage in arrogant acitivities at some point in their life, but whether that person is inherently arrogant is a whole different question.

It has happened a few times too many that I meet people who I ended up describing as such: “You inject yourself into the life of other people and make authoritative statements about matters you know nothing about, making prescriptions, telling people what they should or shouldn't do, to people you don't know or have never even met.” Usually these would be the kind of people whose mind you cannot change, no matter what you would say. They enter a conversation with a pre-formed opinion, and they will forcibly impart it onto you. To them, the correctness of your statement isn't up for debate. While you may be looking to gain new insight by talking to another person who may have a different perspective, to them you are already wrong and need to be told that you are. To them it doesn't even matter why you are wrong, which is why when you actually push their “reasonings” they will continually fall back onto more and more questionable strings of arguments without ever actually making a concession. They are not there to deliberate over the content in question, they are there to make a statement, and you are to accept that statement as is.

This is particularly painful for me - I am a younger person, and since childhood I have essentially always been wrong. It is getting better over time, but people still see the need to continually educate me on the nature of things, using statements that indicate they are in fact the ones whose penetration of the subject at hand is extremely shallow. Treat me like an adult, will you?