"Why doesn't the president just call it Islamic terrorism?"
"Why doesn't the SGU just call the election a big anti-science clusterf..?"
Many of us come here triggered by political garbage from elsewhere on the web or in rl to vent and vindicate how garbagey the garbage is.
Then we trigger each other with our anger and it's generalization, synecdoche, and 'you're a hypocrite' all the way down to the bottom, cause that's how we roll, I guess.
I don't blame the SGU peeps in the least bit for wanting that podcast to actually rise a bit higher than political discourse.
Their audience is either rationalist, or people they hope to show the clarity and force of rationalism-- it wouldn't do, or help, for them to make appeals outside of breaking down bad claims or bad science to make their case.
If you talk politics in the way in which we've all become accustomed (and it gets even worse outside the forum) then not only are you not persuasive at politics, you stop being persuasive at everything else.
Their path is to be as objective as possible, and look at specific, solid claims and actions. The hope is for people to be more open to it.
And if they can get some people on the path to, "oh, okay, this climate change thing is actually a lot less controversial than my Facebook tells me", or GMO or whatever, then people will make more rational decisions from there.
**with the added bonus that they may start being skeptical of bogus news sites'**
Unless those listeners prioritize other things over climate change or other science issues, in which case their grousing wouldn't matter anyway.