Ironically "idealism" is almost always an accurate way to describe the chuddier position on an issue.

But they have been taught to believe that anything that isn't vicious cruelty and domination is unrealistic and emotional.

That perfectly captures the mindset of the "facts and logic" crowd. Believing that cruelty is good actually is the mature smart adult in the room position. It doesn't matter whether they've studied anything or not, believing in cruelty makes tgem smart. You could have every credential and relevent degree imaginable, but if your position is anything approaching "maybe cruelty is not good" you're a bleeding heart, emotional, idealist, childish, untealistic, etc.

If I throw something at your head and it hits you in the face, was it because you did something irrational?

No. Maybe the throw was too hard. Maybe you weren't paying attention. Maybe you can't see, or maybe your arms don't work the way other people's do. Maybe you felt something coming and didn't know what to do and panicked. Maybe you like getting hit in the face. Maybe I threw it really softly, and you were paying attention, but you've never practiced or tried to block/dodge a moving object and it hits you on the nose.

None of those situations are irrational. The only thing irrational that could occur is thinking it happened because of something that couldn't be explained, or by maybe trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

They haven't ever glanced at formal logic aside from a list of fallacies either. They tske the stsr trek Vulcan approach and just kinda say their moral philosophy is logical without really getting into the fact that there are different schools of logic and they aren't doing any of them aside from vibes