There's a great video about this sort of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs

Essentially, it looks at why conservatives vs. liberals approach the world differently. Democracy vs. capitalism is inherently a logical contradiction; in a true democracy, everyone is treated equally and all voices have equal weights. In capitalism, some people are more equal than others - it's a pyramid. Fascism is when these "some people are better" is because of something like genetics, or culture. (The video doesn't touch on this, but modern Communism falls into the same trap as well, where "some people are better" because they know the party leaders or they're technocrats. It's a mindset that humans have and not something exclusive to capitalism.)

Where you wind up on the American political spectrum is based on where you fall when the ideals of equality vs. hierarchy clash. There is no middle ground because the two are fundamentally incompatible - if everyone was truly treated equally, you couldn't have people with more power/status than others. If you accept that not everyone should wield power and that at the end of the day there must be some rich and some poor - some that have power and others that do not - then you are therefore arguing that people shouldn't be treated equally. From there, the pyramid structure is the natural order of things ("always a bigger fish").

Because the structure is fundamentally at odds with itself you can't have both at once. You have to compromise on one side more than the other. Hence there is no such thing as "apolitical", even with technology - it will hold a bias one way or the other.

I'd add the caveat that some technologies are more political than others, too.

Anyone who says they are or claims to be “neutral” or “centrist” simply means their ideals align with the status quo.

Or frequently "I actually find politics too boring and complicated but don't want to admit it".

Not trying to be a smartass, but what's the alternative?

White christian men is an awfully specific thing for the model to be sensitive towards IMO.

Right-wing media is perceived to be funded by white christian men, so if that is the source of the data then I'm not too surprised their writing and articles would protect themselves - but still intriguing how the model picked up on this from online discussions & news data, and was sensitive to hate speech aimed at that group specifically, compared with the Left data which appears more inclusive - although this is probably indicative of the bias they're studying in the article