It frustrates me that "hate" as a term has been diluted a hell of a lot so it can be spread further and wider.
It's a useful term when it's important to recognise, for example, that the person making claims may be motivated by such extreme, perhaps even irrational dislike as to make what they say very unreliable, or that they might wish to deliberately cause serious harm to people.
But I don't think it counts intrinsically as hate to believe things like, I dunno, God created women as a counterpart to men, they're weaker and less suited to intellectual work than men, so are more suited to caring for a husband and nurturing a family, even if they think they'd like a career. Or that more open immigration rules can be harmful to lower-paid local workers and to existing social cohesion and valued cultural norms, so immigration should be strictly limited. Or that being gay is likely to lead to an unhappy life, and telling young people that homosexuality exists will make them more likely to become gay. Saying things like this can be motivated by or result in hate, but not necessarily.
They might be woefully incorrect, ignorant of the world outside their bubble, or motivated by self-interest, or they might say insulting or hurtful or dangerous things, or campaign for things that will result in terrible harm, or all of the above. But it's possible for all those things to be true, and for people to hold all kinds of views that get called "hate", and there be no actual hate involved.
The person involved may sincerely think that they're on the side of good, and that what they want will prevent or reduce suffering and harm. (And, of course, there may be people who believe other things who are accused of being motivated by hate, who are not only well-meaning, but also right in their assessment of the situation.) You can cause terrible harm without hate, and you can cause terrible harm with hate, and I think they probably need different approaches.
Nobody will be persuaded by being told they're motivated by hate when they know for a fact they feel no hate, and only want to e.g. protect children from unwittingly choosing a life of sadness by deciding to be gay. There's a possibility you might persuade them if you show them that they've been misled, that there are many happy gay people, that a lot of any unhappiness was because of how society was set up, and that there's excellent evidence that you can't choose the parameters of your sexual orientation and that fighting against it causes real suffering.
Calling "hate" when there's no evidence of actual hate will just make people entrench and dismiss any other part of the argument against them. And I think that people on the sidelines looking on may start to take accusations of hate less seriously, too, because it gets used so much in situations that don't appear to have anything to do with a normal everyday interpretation of the word "hate". That's a problem because there is plenty of genuine hate, and when it's identified it needs to be taken seriously.