[daenz]

> ideas that are entirely political, and which are ultimately only about engaging the controversy itself.

If you read the same article I did, that's not the reason they claimed, so I don't know where you're getting that from. Here's the relevant portion:

> And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media.

It says nothing about the talk being only about engaging controversy, nor about the idea being entirely political. The reason was that it had potential to rile people up. You are confusing an idea that will unavoidably rile people up with an idea that is intended to rile people up. They are not the same.