Would your thoughts change were the subjunctive removed ?

I vaguely remember coming in contact with the word back in freshman Spanish.

A classic, preliminary explanation would be, "The subjunctive is always used in a subordinate clause where there is a change of subject and the expression in the main clause implies negation or uncertainty."
So--for example--if I were to write, "Elliott--or should maybe it was the gender-neutral Leslie--questioned in the negative, 'Are you not listening to me?'" In this statement, the subject was changed, the action was negated, and yet the verb in the subordinate clause is indicative.

Of course, my skills and understanding of ambiguous instruction have evolved over time. I am of the belief that when one masters the grammar of the language and understands its usage and application in daily parlance, the way in which one thinks also changes. I note that I speak differently when I address ESL speakers. I also adjust my English when I speak to younger children. This was not always the case. Since I speak German as a second language, I was never taught the nuances of talking to a child. During a walk with a two year old girl and her mother, the child complained that there a pebble had gotten into her shoe. I knelt down to the child's eye level and said, "Lena! Deine Schuhe sind geschnürt und haben keine Löcher. Es ist wissenschaftlich unmöglich, daß Kieselsteine in sie eingedrungen sind !"
Her mother laughed hysterically. One generally doesn't speak to a two year old with phrases of scientific impossibility in relation to the presence of pebbles in one's shoes. I stood corrected!
The subjunctive is not a big deal in American English. It is more common to hear the phrases, "If I was you," or "I wish he was out of my life," than said employing the 'more' appropriate subjunctive mood. For the longest time I had practically memorized all of the verbs that would cause a subjunctive in the subordinate clause if they were placed in the main clause.
I remember having an unnecessarily long chit-chat with a college friend about whether or not I would go to the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) to convert my divers license into a REAL ID. REAL ID, by the way, is the same all over the nation. The name of the state agency that issues drivers their driver's license may go by a different name. For example, in Maryland it is MDOT (Maryland Department of Transportation). In Idaho it's the ITD (Idaho Transportation Department). In Alaska the DMV is the Division of Motor Vehicles which is under the Department of Administration. And on the Hawaiian islands, the DMV seems to be the state wide name for the department, but it is administered on the county level. They have driver licensing centers and satellite city halls.
Off topic! AGAIN! What a surprise.
Anyway, I was initially opposed to going through the process of getting paperwork done to have REAL ID with the DMV. I thought the purpose was to verify that you live where you say you live. After going through with the documentation, it basically was an opportunity to record a thumb print and to make sure you use the same name on all of the documents. Other than the passport, the documents that I use are paperwork that was issued from the DMV (registration, title, driver's license).
So the conversation went something like:
I worry that my residential information is recorded and stored in a database,
I don't want the state government sharing information about me with other agencies,
I cherish my privacy and I am angry that governmental agencies create wacky rules that
impose on my freedoms.
Anyway, I seldom worry about my use of the subjunctive in my subordinate clauses based on my level of pissed-offedness in the main clause.