Sometimes it's useful not to 'simply' judge a book by its cover - or perhaps a podcast 'simply' by its title. I took a quick look at the transcripts and the topic of discussion is about a tool that reminds me a lot of Smoke Detector for Twitter, and a few other bits of data.
The nice thing about the transcript is that I can do a quick search for the word haters and it is said a grand total of zero times. (And I might want to actually listen to it - sounds interesting.)
As for the term itself - as a moderator, and occasional yeller at SE when they mess up, it's useful for me, at least as a mental exercise to consider whether a reasonable person would find it offensive. Naturally, opinions may differ, as does cultural relevance.
The first thing that comes to mind is the term "Haters gonna hate":
Practically - in modern/internet culture, this tends to be a term used to brush off folks who're trying to put you down, so... for most part it's inoffensive.
The US government (and I assume the current administration) also talks about it in those terms in their anti-bullying page archive link - using the precise term and defining it as:
"Hater" is a label used to refer to people who use negative and critical comments and behavior to bring another person down by making them look or feel bad.
I don't find anything specifically relevant in the current stacks design guide either.
Naturally - it's not for me to say what someone would be offended by, but it feels like it's not that offensive a label unless applied to someone specifically.
On the other hand, when talking about tools - internal, or community led, it's about the tool and objectives, not the 'target'. It is a bit unusual, title-wise.
It's certainly a clickbaity title, and possibly oversimplifies the work being done by block party, but I wouldn't go as far as escalating it as a COC violation if it had been something I had to moderate based on content alone.