Absolutely. This behaviour is promoted at every level of life, especially during education unfortunately, which has been designed specifically to ready people for the work force, think less critically and creatively, and accept the hierarchy as correct. So people turn out ignorant, a product of these governments who know that people will support anything not to be ignored. It's an engineered weakness.

Absolutely politics is much like religion in the west. There is a lot of emphasis on belief rather practical solution. In the US especially presidents are at an almost godlike status, the founding fathers faces are even carved into rock (I cannot remember the name of this thing) much like sculptures in church's or temples. It is interesting how the 'American way' or whatever you'd like to call it is seen as good and right though there are very loose ideas that hold it together, such as freedom. Therefore it leaves a lot up to interpretation, similar to have Christianity and Islam are centered around one holy book but there are numerous factions that have split from eachother because of their different interpretations. This can leave people confused as they know the core ideas of such religion, but they don't know how to go about putting them into use. Therefore any politician can argue any way as long as the end result is this intangible 'freedom' idea. Centering everything on such a broad idea can get people used to painting over details in favour of simplified ideologies or words. Again there is a lot of emotional power behind these words, they require a lot of belief.

It is interesting also that such people working low paid jobs generally feel ignored by government. That feeling of being ignored and shoved aside can be easily taken advantage of. They can usually get on board with any politician who notices and speaks to/for them. Whatever other policies that politician has these people will adopt them, they are just happy to be noticed and to adopt the belief that following this politician will make their futures better than they are at the present.

I'm not sure I would call them low resolution though I understand what you are saying. Emotional responses are very useful, they can be used as signposts to broader issues though they don't necessarily work on their own as conclusions. If something deeply effects me emotionally I know there is something wrong, it's now my place to analyse what that is. The example of acting angrily to someone destroying your property is useful, though when it comes to abortion people are reacting to the automatic 'murder!' or 'rights!" conclusions, the emotional reaction to these two things is somewhat akin to hearing someone say they're going to destroy your property despite the two examples not being the same. People definitely feel some kind of moral ownership over ideas such as murder, their emotional reactions to murder (disconnected from the wider issue of abortion) are very deep and personal. People react often as if you have personally insulted them (or destroyed their property!) When it comes to such issues..

However like I said the emotive argument of murder is disconnected from the complex and broader issue that is meant to be discussed (abortion). So yes, they can definitely be 'low resolution' words, especially used by politicians. Like you said these buzzwords are important in radicalisation, they override any rational discussion.

And yes of course people have different emotional reactions to certain words, the emotional experience of them is subjective so talking through buzzwords is not going to have any kind of universal understanding

I agree that people generally speak different languages when discussing opinions, thoughts and ideas, specifically pertaining to politics. In my own life I've noticed that the way you phrase something is very important if you want someone to agree with you! If you phrase something with a specific person in mind, even if the argument you're making has been established as wrong by that person, you are more likely to get them to contradict themselves. Unless of course they have thought their opinion out thoroughly and rationally.

Unfortunately most people around the dinner table have not, they are usually reacting to emotive arguments and moral gut feelings. I've found people can feel so strongly that it's almost impossible for them to test out their arguments and the topic itself on a cold rational plane. Anyone attempting to do so with them will be met with anger. People have a tendency to think that anything that comes out your mouth is an absolute statement. So these individual languages of people reach further than just theoretical or rational questions, there is a strong emotional element there which often ties in with a whole bunch of things. Basically people aren't just discussing an opinion they thought out in a cold rational way, but rather theyre discussing (in often a very covert way) their past experiences, associations they've made through these past experiences, their emotions towards a subject, and the emotive arguments they've heard from other around them throughout life.

When you take the example of abortion, you have two very emotive arguments. Both of them have very extreme consequences, it's basically murder Vs women's rights. Therefore instead of a discussion about abortion in itself, the argument turns immediately to murder Vs rights. These two arguments are so strongly attached to what is at gut level wrong and right, that it becomes impossible to actually discuss the issues surrounding abortion. It is very easy for politicians or whoever to take a topic like abortion and say 'murder!' and have people running around like headless chickens.

Essentially people want simple explanations for difficult subjects, often people are either too lazy, too overwhelmed, or just too stupid to want to even sift through all the different perspectives, issues, consequences, connections, positives, negatives and grey areas that such topics demand. Creating a balanced and throughout out opinion takes a lot of thinking, many people are intelligent enough to be able to think like this, but not all of them know how to.

Like someone said here, if people are open to understanding others perspective, it's usually a lot easier. Unfortunately when arguments are reduced down to 'MURDER Vs RIGHTS' that's less likely to happen.

I think the question might be, what is it that you expect to happen? What is the ideal here? Unfortunately there is no such thing as walking into the sunset, now totally fulfilled. The only thing similar to that is death. Is life really just about obtaining? Perhaps you need a more playful attitude to life in which exploring is the main 'goal'. One thing we do obtain is experience, it can stay with us til our deathbed. Even those with dementia remember experience, the experience of songs or persons. I think it is in our nature to consume, there's not much one can do about it, though the way we go about it (or restrict it) is interesting and worth exploring. I don't have an answer here, but hopefully hat I've written can help in some way.

Absolutely. Sometimes the best and meaningful artwork is by those who are untrained, unbound by what should or should not be considered art, and what is 'correct'. I recommend looking at Outsider Art, often these artists have no problem scribbling then spontaneously dumping their art, forgetting about it completely (only for it to be picked up off the floor and gawked at by those who find this behaviour somehow mystical or enviable). It goes to show that the process and feeling that is applied to creating is more important than the end result. Your example of group singing is bang on, it can be a spontaneous act, shoddily done, that moment played with and thoroughly enjoyed, then discarded. Training to master a skill is the opposite, it's a different kind of thing, like an Art, rather than art.

I suppose an Art is something individually manicured and perfected for others to enjoy, rather than a participatory or playful thing. It's rather mechanic, mathematical, and has a particular goal in mind. (I haven't thought too much about the difference between an Art and art, but do with it what you will). Training to 'perfection' can often limit creativity, something that is vital to a community as new problems are always cropping up that rigid traditional solutions can not combat effectively. There can be a thousand carpenters trained to perfection on a traditional type of joint, on a particular type of wood, and they will all do it the exact same way. But what happens if something prevents them from using this particular wood, what if they have to build something that can not involve this particular type of joint? Will they even know what to do? Will they be too scared to try something else?

Creativity can be a skill in itself, and people are often very wary to step into it, to play even. For a lot of people who have not grown up with a creative background they have to learn to allow themselves to be creative, to think creatively. Often education breeds this out of us as children, even art lessons can be quite authoritarian in that you will be given a task such as "make an angel" with rigid steps and a particular colour. I've seen children shouted at or punished for allowing themselves to be creative outside of the restrictions set by the class. Creative thinking can not be taught by rigid lessons, or How To's, and often the teachers holding these lessons have only two ideas of what art is. It's usually Hyperrealism or Photorealism, renaissance painting... Or so called 'abstract'; Picasso or Van Gogh. So in a way 'Excellence' is a product of our very strange society, hell bent on production, worker mentality, and narcissistic individualism. We are given The Greats to look at, the perfectly skilled, but at the same time punished or shamed for not following the rules. There is more to say about this, which I will neglect for now.

Besides how are we to know what is 'correct' when it comes to creativity, this excellence or correctness is a contradiction when applied to creativity. To create one must expand or recycle, a creative mind constantly plays, mashing ideas together, twisting them into new forms, taking what is known and turning it on its head. There is no aim exactly to it, it is play and everyone can partake in play, and nothing is immune to it. Excellence is the opposite of this, it is about reducing and restricting, instead of recycling there is replicating. If everything can be replicated then it can be sold on mass, this is important to the kind of society with live in and not at all helpful.

About philosophy, I also agree. The nature of philosophy is to wonder, question, recycle, expand, it is truly a creative way of thinking. Children as young as five can do this, this us absolutely Not a criticism but a positive. A society that values philosophical thinking, values creativity, and encourages community and individuality entwined. Just as a choir around a campfire has many different voices, all come together for the same reason.