No, that's fallacious in two ways: equivocation and appeal to emotion. Neutrality is not defined by upsetting both sides equally, because that means one side could shift the definition of neutral in their favor by being (or pretending to be) more upset.
Actual neutrality requires objectivity and calling out crocodile tears based on exaggerations (or even wholly imaginary issues, for that matter) as what they are.
Except it's not, he thinks he's consistent. Far left and far right are a matter of perspective, and from where he sits, far left is trying to not deadname someone, starting a union, or progressive taxation. His far right is somewhere past suggesting gas chambers for social deviants.
Anything that involves people at scale, will contain politics. Whether that's interpersonal politics or government politics. People will eventually become polarized based on their political views.
I'm gonna dissect a definition so I can agree with you: from dictionary.com: Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
No, they just equate "neutrality" with their way being the status quo. It is a very intentional choice to shift the Overton window by insisting that this is neutrality.
This dude sounds like he needs a boot to the mouth. I swear every time he tries to sound smart he comes off as incredibly dumb, just like his ugly weirdo mother and father.