I don't think it's just the medium. It's a known issue with economists, that people sometimes have a visceral negative reaction to how we talk. Since we analyze human behavior and economic efficiency from a morally neutral lens, it often comes off as cold, amoral, and uncaring to a lot of people, and they assume that economists have no values other than economic efficiency. It's also reinforced by some talking heads on TV who emphasize economic growth above all else (see #1567808).

What I want people to understand is that being able to talk about things in a morally neutral way doesn't mean you don't have a moral opinion. And making a morally neutral argument doesn't mean I don't take moral arguments seriously.

I will stand my ground and insist that you must understand the morally neutral arguments first before you should begin to discuss the moral arguments, though. Moral arguments have to be grounded in how people will actually act, not just how you wish they'd act.