It is better to be a scoundrel and not a scoundrel.

What about the things where the Gemara explicitly said not to protest because it would be better for them to be mistaken, is this some kind of assessment that it was clear to them that no one would listen to it? Or is it because some will not listen? (What happens if there is some general phenomenon that they want to prove and know that only some will accept, does it need to be proven or not?)

Isn't not saying something that is not heard from the same place as it would be better for them to be mistaken?

Even in matters that the Gemara explicitly states, one must exercise judgment according to the time and place. And if you are in such a situation and in your opinion they will listen to you, you must prove it.
If some will listen and some will not, in my opinion, one must prove it. The fear of aggravating the sin of some cannot harm the salvation of the other part. One does not say a sin to a person so that his friend may be justified. And certainly not when they do so intentionally and do not listen to rebuke (see Toss Shabbat 4:1).
Not saying something that is not heard is to prevent a quarrel and not to reduce the severity of the offenses. It is better to be a shuggin in order to reduce the severity of the offenses.

Thank you very much
I'm still trying to understand the Gemara's judgment, on what basis did they write about a certain halacha that it is better not to protest because it would be better if they were mistaken, is this just a period interpretation of the state of that halacha in their generation and nothing more? It means nothing to a rabbi who happened to live in another city at the time, and in fact has no general validity.

I already answered that.

You didn't answer, you only answered from the side of the one who studies this halacha, what is the effect on him
I'm trying to understand how it makes sense for someone to write in the Talmud that it is a book that is intended for everyone – about a certain halacha that should not be criticized by those who transgress it because it is better for them to be mistaken, who did he see based on which he made this determination? The people of his city? His entire generation? One secular person who doesn't care? His grandmother? What was enough for him to make such a determination?

I answered that clearly too. I'm done.

Okay
If there is someone here who understood and can explain it to me, I would be happy. Thanks

Maybe you could just copy and paste the line where you answered the question, so I can understand what you're talking about?

I have detailed the considerations underlying such a decision. My assumption is that this is also what was done in the Talmud.

Oh okay, thanks.
I assumed that there should be a difference between someone who wrote this as a general rule about a specific case (which means he assumed something that concerns the general public) and the learner.