The Actual Threat to Democracy

[Satinavian]

No, that doesn't seem legit. A sample of only people who gave campaign contributions in an unstated timeframe is not good data for figuring out real numbers overall. Look at that number for engineering, look at it broken down by discipline.

And here i thought you might like numbers derived from campaign donations. Because people who donate are likely working adults, not college students or whatever.

Their mean ratio for engineers as a whole is nearly identical to the second most blue subcategory, which environmental engineering isn't really a big enough field to meaningfully change the number overall, even if they were far off that mean. Assuming they didn't mess up the numbers for this infographic (which I am assuming this), this suggests that political contributions from software engineers (many of who don't have degrees in the first place) are so numerous as to outweigh every other type listed. This does not mean engineers lean left, more likely it's a result of most engineers not making active campaign contributions while big tech employees notoriously flood the coffers of Democrats. But they're all out in California, that's what people in California do, that's not really tied to career or education.

Yes, Software engineers probably drone out the others a bit and a number of them don't have a degree. But ignore the total engineer number and the software engineer number and you still get most of the engineer fields being left wing, not right. And even if software engineers have a dubious claim to engineer, they are undoubtly part of STEM.

Also, if the numbers don't turn out like you like suddenly it is important where they live ? Yes, STEM-people probably mostly don't live in rual, republican areas. Because they find their jobs more likely in or around cities. But i don't think "working for the gouvernment" vs. "working for a private company" has any significant influence. People switch from one to another all the time, depending on project, compensation and working condition. It doesn't change their political outlook. Also there are not that many gouvernment jobs anyway, the far majority of STEM absolvents works in the private sector while still leaning democrat.

And big tech ? Of course people with a career in science, technology, engineering or math are more likely than average like to work for big companies with a technology focus. That is exactly where the kind of work they can do needs to be done. It is even in the name.


And i remind you, the numbers are "people primarily giving to democrats" vs "people primarily giving to republicans". Campaign donations of companies are not even in the picture nor is the amount of money of indicidual donations, so it is impossible for single large donations to tip the scale. It seems like it really are the engineers themself giving to the democrats.



I know that it is really important for you to have the hard working STEM people whom you somewhat respect, especially if they don't work directly for the gouvernment, on your side. But that alone does not make it true at all. And no amount of rationalisation why they should be right wing will ever change that. They just are not.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

*resisting temptation to engage*

 

[davidmc1158]

I'll just leave this here as an alternate viewpoint.

 

[Gordon_4]

*resisting temptation to engage*

“Do not fire until fired upon”

 

[Absent]

“Do not fire until fired upon”

also no feeding. if only.

 

[tstorm823]

But ignore the total engineer number and the software engineer number and you still get most of the engineer fields being left wing, not right.

But not by any more of a degree than the general population. More people are left wing than right wing (in the US), to demonstrate a subset of the population is significantly further left than average, they need to be at least approaching the 60:40 range. Anything within a few points of 50:50 is more conservative than average.

And even if software engineers have a dubious claim to engineer, they are undoubtly part of STEM.

Which I don't dispute, but they become a strong showing against the trend we are discussing. The correlation we are talking about is "the more education you have, the more liberal you tend to be". In the engineering fields listed there, on average, software engineers are going to have spent the least time in education, as I think a career in any of the others requires at minimum a bachelors degree. And yet they are the furthest left by a mile, and super politically active at that. This was my original point in bringing up doctors and engineers: more education does not correlate to more liberalism in these fields.

Also, if the numbers don't turn out like you like suddenly it is important where they live ? Yes, STEM-people probably mostly don't live in rual, republican areas. Because they find their jobs more likely in or around cities. But i don't think "working for the gouvernment" vs. "working for a private company" has any significant influence.

You're going to argue that education has a meaningful relationship to political persuasion, but not where you live or who you work for? Seriously? Do you think people living in California and working for Google lean left because they're more educated, and it has nothing to do with the subculture they live in?

And i remind you, the numbers are "people primarily giving to democrats" vs "people primarily giving to republicans". Campaign donations of companies are not even in the picture nor is the amount of money of indicidual donations, so it is impossible for single large donations to tip the scale. It seems like it really are the engineers themself giving to the democrats.

Well that's not entirely true. Companies can solicit donations from workers donate in their name. It's typically done to a non-partisan PAC, but post-Citizen's United, there's really nothing stopping blatant partisanship. If you go straight to the FEC's individual contribution site and see like 10 consecutive donations from different people working for the same company, that's not coincidence. Looking right now through recent entries, on April 30th there were 13 donations at once from different employees of Sony Pictures to the Sony Pictures PAC. That's probably giving to both parties, cause that's how lobbying works, but you get the idea.

also no feeding. if only.

You actively name-drop me in threads I'm not participating in.

 

[Silvanus]

If the vast majority of adults are either in school or in the workforce, and more years of higher education correlates to relatively more liberalism, then the inverse is also true. Relative to those who spend more time on schooling, those who spent that time in the work force are more conservative. It's the same correlation presented differently.

No, that simply doesn't logically follow. We've already been over some of the reasons earlier in the thread, and I don't feel like rehashing the same conversation after it's gone in an inevitable circle.

 

[tstorm823]

No, that simply doesn't logically follow. We've already been over some of the reasons earlier in the thread, and I don't feel like rehashing the same conversation after it's gone in an inevitable circle.

It 100% logically follows, your rebuttal claims the effect of higher education on politics lasts longer than their lifetime, and then people make up for the time not in the workforce 10-fold afterwards, as though the people who went straight into the workforce aren't still working. Your reasons were all illogical.

 

[Silvanus]

It 100% logically follows, your rebuttal claims the effect of higher education on politics lasts longer than their lifetime, and then people make up for the time not in the workforce 10-fold afterwards, as though the people who went straight into the workforce aren't still working. Your reasons were all illogical.

It makes an enormous number of assumptions. You're assuming, for instance, that the exact same proportion of time post-HE will be spent in work for those who went into HE and those who didn't. That's the only way that one could possibly state that an extra year of a degree automatically equates to a year less in work.

Secondly, your group comparison also only works if you assume the exact same age for respondents. Because you add even a single year to a respondent in the HE group, and that gives them time to complete a Masters and then still get the same amount of work experience as someone a year younger. Yet you and I both know that studies of this kind do not make an exact age comparison.

And finally, your issue with my argument entirely missed the point I was making. Say someone spends 3 years on a degree, and then 20 years in work. It's your contention that those 3 lost years of work are making the difference-- as if their politics would've been drastically different if they'd just had 23 years in work instead. It's bollocks-- they've gathered more than enough experience of work, and yet the impact of HE remains.

The better explanation is generational.

 

[tstorm823]

Secondly, your group comparison also only works if you assume the exact same age for respondents. Because you add even a single year to a respondent in the HE group, and that gives them time to complete a Masters and then still get the same amount of work experience as someone a year younger. Yet you and I both know that studies of this kind do not make an exact age comparison.

And finally, your issue with my argument entirely missed the point I was making. Say someone spends 3 years on a degree, and then 20 years in work. It's your contention that those 3 lost years of work are making the difference-- as if their politics would've been drastically different if they'd just had 23 years in work instead. It's bollocks-- they've gathered more than enough experience of work, and yet the impact of HE remains.

Your second paragraph contradicts your third. If the studies aren't telling you age comparisons, how do you know the effect still remains?

 

[Silvanus]

Your second paragraph contradicts your third. If the studies aren't telling you age comparisons, how do you know the effect still remains?

They make comparisons across relatively broad age ranges. Whereas your position, positing that a year in HE directly equates to a year lost of work, would require an exact year age comparison (as well as certainty that the same proportion of time post-HE was spent in work). Both of which are nearly impossible guarantees.

 

[Gergar12]

Social media, and in reality only Tik Tok is simply the left wing of America getting an even playing field. Every other significant media source is right-wing or afraid of them. CNN is afraid of the right and is increasingly controlled by a right-wing doner that increasingly using his influence to make CNN more right-wing. MSNBC is afraid of the right-wing and regularly hosts conservatives whose only redeeming trait is that they hate Trump. Twitter is owned by Musk, and Facebook/Meta & Family is owned by Zuckerberg who has swung to the right with both his user base and his meetings with the right wing. But the right wing doesn't control Tik Tok, and it evens the playing field.

Now why is that, well it could be because China has an interest in seeing a lefty official being elected in hopes that they reduce military spending, or doesn't get involved with Taiwan, and that makes rational sense. It could be because the left is the main non-status quo power in the US Congress so China hopes to rock the boat in hopes to destabilize the US. Whatever the reason China may have leveled the playing field with Tik Tok, and that may end up inadvertently saving US democracy in the long run. You cannot win the US presidency on Tik Tok alone, but it does mean the left gets a voice that is sorely lacking in the US, and it adds power to the pro-democracy camp in the US.

Do I agree with all of the left wing's issues no, but without them, you lose people to apathy, and resentment in a way that distorts the political power balance in the US to the Republicans who are the single biggest threat to democracy, which Trump and Carlson are at the forefront of bring American democracy down.

 

[Silvanus]

But the right wing doesn't control Tik Tok, and it evens the playing field.

Sounds a bit like putting a slice of bread on one side of a set of scales to balance it out, when the other side has a truck on it.

Now why is that, well it could be because China has an interest in seeing a lefty official being elected in hopes that they reduce military spending, or doesn't get involved with Taiwan, and that makes rational sense. It could be because the left is the main non-status quo power in the US Congress so China hopes to rock the boat in hopes to destabilize the US. Whatever the reason China may have leveled the playing field with Tik Tok [...]

Or... it could be because young people use social media more, and young people are more socially liberal.

 

[Baffle]

Sounds a bit like putting a slice of bread on one side of a set of scales to balance it out, when the other side has a truck on

And it's not even good bread, it's the awful Slimmer's World cardboard breadalike.

 

[Gergar12]

Sounds a bit like putting a slice of bread on one side of a set of scales to balance it out, when the other side has a truck on it.



Or... it could be because young people use social media more, and young people are more socially liberal.

Then explain the rightwing bent on every other major social media site other than maybe Instagram and Tik Tok. Every American social media site is full of reactionaries. Tik Tok is the exception because it's not controlled by rich men in America it’s controlled by another country whose interests don’t align with the right in America.

 

[Silvanus]

Then explain the rightwing bent on every other major social media site other than maybe Instagram and Tik Tok. Every American social media site is full of reactionaries. Tik Tok is the exception because it's not controlled by rich men in America it’s controlled by another country whose interests don’t align with the right in America.

I'd contend that quite a few of them aren't actually particularly right-wing in membership, but are in policy. Which is the same as ByteDance, which owns TikTok.

 

[Gergar12]

I'd contend that quite a few of them aren't actually particularly right-wing in membership, but are in policy. Which is the same as ByteDance, which owns TikTok.

Tik Tok is more centrist authoritarian or is an apolitical power monger. China does too many left wing things like capping housing prices to be really right wing.

I would actually argue if China wanted to let the US die they would ban all liberal and left content on it and just let the right wing have their own echo chamber. If the US becomes a right wing dictatorship it would crater American softpower and make getting Allies much harder. Which is why, I am surprised they let the prodemocracy dems on there.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Which is why, I am surprised they let the prodemocracy dems on there.

Because the Dems are neo-liberal centrists by global standards... and, to be honest, I think the US trying to kneecap itself with 'culture wars' gives the CCP some giggles.

 

[Silvanus]

Tik Tok is more centrist authoritarian or is an apolitical power monger. China does too many left wing things like capping housing prices to be really right wing.

The Chinese government is a technocratic amalgamation of traditionally left-wing methodologies (centralised economic control, communitarianism) and right-wing priorities (ruthless corporatism, ethnic chauvinism, disregard for the poor). It defies easy classification.

But ByteDance is not the government. It is a corporation which must appease the government to function, and which the government may lean on or leverage-- but that's not the same thing. It has absolutely zero involvement in housing prices and it exists to make money.

I would actually argue if China wanted to let the US die they would ban all liberal and left content on it and just let the right wing have their own echo chamber. If the US becomes a right wing dictatorship it would crater American softpower and make getting Allies much harder. Which is why, I am surprised they let the prodemocracy dems on there.

Banning an entire mainstream half of the US userbase from its platform would be catastrophically self-defeating, and is obviously a non-starter.

TikTok's primary purpose is to make money, not to forment uprising. Not /everything/ geopolitical rivals do is aimed at global domination.

 

[Trunkage]

Because the Dems are neo-liberal centrists by global standards... and, to be honest, I think the US trying to kneecap itself with 'culture wars' gives the CCP some giggles.

I mean, they sure give me some giggles

But ByteDance is not the government. It is a corporation which must appease the government to function, and which the government may lean on or leverage-- but that's not the same thing. It has absolutely zero involvement in housing prices and it exists to make money.

Remember when Trump tried to force ByteDance to change a bunch of things on Tik Tok to make it acceptable so it sold on US platforms?

But... the Chinese government is the only one we should be worried about....