It's fine for people to disagree, sure, and I certainly don't expect to convince everyone. You're also absolutely right that disagreements can engage the emotions in the way you describe.

But consider your example, software. People have strong emotions about, say, Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux as a platform. This isn't just about the feels. Real issues are at stake. The Unix-hater's handbook points out how "root" was a terrible security model. Similar comments might apply to Windows.

Well, I think art matters too. There's no bright line between "art" and the other ways people have of expressing ideas (political speeches, say). If our art is clichéd, it means our ideas are clichéd. At worst, it means we are hiding from reality in a bubble of uplift and togetherness. At present (in my view as an outsider) Americans really need to come together as a nation - but that will require more than repeating the clichés of one's own political tribe. So in that sense, I think this poem is a bad omen.

There is a contradiction in what you’re saying here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion unless it is a critical opinion.

The comment gives sound reasons for not liking the poem, it does not resort to the kind of cheap shots you describe. (Which by the way don’t really qualify as criticism)

Without critical perspective there would be no such thing as great art. We need more critical thinking, not less.

I think people are tired of the same politically-motivated dog and pony show every time inventing a new totem. Like WaPo/NYT-fabricated "pop icon" Ruth Bader Ginsberg last year. It's the same chorus of vapid praise each time, neatly confined to a news cycle.