Do you think you've successfully bullshitted yourself into believing that you don't react emotionally? That's kind of rhetorical. It's impossible to do it, but if you think you believe otherwise... yay. What's hilarious is the implication that exhibiting, or even having, emotion is somehow a form of weakness.
I agree, you can't assign embarrassment to someone who isn't embarrassed. It's like believing you can change someone else's mind. It's impossible. Only the person themselves can do that.
The next time the "sides" are made clear to me will be the first time.
lol, don't flatter yourself into believing that you have some level of understanding about much of anything, other than maybe guitars and music, that justifies your condescension. Certainly not in reading comprehension. From my post;
"reacting emotionally instead of logically and circumspectly
in too many instances...".
This indicates and connotes not that there is a one-or-the-other, black or white dichotomy between feelings and logic, but rather that one might lean more heavily toward one or the other in reacting and addressing situations. OF COURSE we are emotional. I have even offered that we are ONLY emotional, with logic and reason being imbedded in and derived from our emotional body chemistry.
So maybe it will be helpful if I say 'feelings' instead of 'emotions' although it seems silly to have to do so.
So having gotten that out of the way, I'll state again that Moore is TOO emotional, that is, too subject to his feelings, and inadequately circumspect in his consideration of the world around him. And it isn't only Moore, he is just a more extreme example. It's my belief that a major difference between liberal and conservative is a tendency to succumb to and operate on feelings on the liberal side of things and more the ability to control feelings on the con side. It isn't a matter of not caring enough about problems and solutions but rather recognizing the need to control emotions in order to
achieve them.
So yes, one can certainly be too emotional and allow those emotional responses to interfere with practical problem-solving and in fact even become the problem. I guess it's possible you somehow missed the antifa/blm riots, as an example.
So here's the case in point that you provide, and have consistently provided over time....
"The next time the "sides" are made clear to me will be the first time." One has to actually deny a sense of logic in order to maintain this failure to see the readily apparent. Once more I explain what needs no explaining to those who aren't emotionally invested in purposely defying logic to contend that there isn't a political spectrum that becomes divided mainly (in major elections) into two sides to be voted for according to which side more represents the voter's wishes. You vote this way(that's one side) or you vote the other way (that's the other side). Sides.
And even before a vote takes place, a side may be argued for or against as to which is, although not entirely different from the other, different enough to affect a difference in the repercussions.
I'm glad you agree about embarrassment but I take issue with the inability to change people's minds. That is not impossible. All that takes is an OPEN mind and the application of a suitable amount of either reason or emotion.
