He’s a lightning rod only because some people get unnecessarily triggered by facts that don’t fit their world view.

There’s a thin line between satire, which can convince, and sneering, which can only turn off. John Oliver, unfortunately, does end up on the wrong side of it from time to time, and can (together with his core audience) be something of a bully when he does.

I’d also be careful about his facts: they’re usually well-researched, but by the nature of the format he only ever presents those which fit his argument, and that’s just not good epistemology. I can think of a few times when the show made me feel safer about my beliefs than I should have been feeling.

The time for this debate was 100 years ago. Now only people who can't be convinced aren't convinced, so there's no point convincing.

So why not make fun of them? There's no downside.

>So why not make fun of them? There's no downside.

...except the populist right backlash, triggered in part by their resentment at coastal "elites" (think yuppies, not people who fly to davos annually) sneering at them.

The "coastal elites" they resent are made up by conservative media. No behavior changes by the yuppies can affect the ever-increasing resentment people feel in response to this sneering bully, because the bully is made up and the tendency of RW media to use ever-more-dire portrayals of supposed societal ills.

As an aside, I think the culture which produces this result is related to people in the US always thinking crime is increasing, regardless of actual crime trends.

They will do that anyway. No amount of pandering will change their minds.