The Rise Of Emotionality

[surreptitious75]

Social justice is effectively the secular equivalent of a belief system that comes equipped with its very own moral code
This allows social justice warriors to assume a monopoly on wisdom and so anyone who disagrees with them is both wrong and morally weak as a consequence
The outrage therefore is a consequence of said moral code being violated by events that are beyond their control such as the result of an election for example

The puritanical element within social justice is very damaging indeed even if its core principles are fundamentally sound
Everyone must abide by the rules of identity politics and so no one can think for themslves individually only collectively
For anyone deviating from this will be publicly demonised for their betrayal from the script which is simply not allowed

However anyone can be a snowflake so it is not something exclusive to the left even though it is predominantly associated with them

[surreptitious75]

Sometimes the rigidity of the moral code will defy logic but it must still be upheld by all
To reject this is to be labelled a derogatory term simply for refusing to toe the party line

The emphasis is on solidarity rather than any fundamental acceptance of reality as it really is
Idealism is therefore more important than pragmatism regardless of how unrealistic it may be

[iambiguous]

Seriously, you get into a discussion regarding the rise of emotionalism in today's world. As noted in the OP.

Someone reacts to that by noting this:

The only appropriate response is admitting fallibility, humility, so as to belong to the collective.
We are not omnipotent, so we must be equally feeble.
The specimen must receive this validation.

No certainty, no pride, no arrogance. Only humility.
Admit that you may be wrong, to belong to the collective of equally wrong.
Either omniscient, or ignorant.
Either/Or.
1/0
Dualities.
If not absolutely good, then absolutely evil.

He calls this "serious philosophy".

Now, you tell me:

In regard to your own interactions with others, some liberals, some conservatives, what would be the use value and exchange value of an assessment of this sort when the discussion does in fact precipitate all manner of fierce emotional outbursts. From both sides.

In regard to the impeachment of Trump. Or Jews. Or race. Or gender. Or homosexuality.

Et cetera.

Back to this:

What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don't you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.

[unnatural]

I think the phenomenon you're describing is called cultural neoteny.