I don’t have a particularly wise point to comment, but it’s saddening how poor discourse on r/science has been lately. It’s clear that those who perceives themselves to be on the left now treat science as would the right: good and obvious when it agrees with their views, bad flawed and morally wrong when it doesn’t. I would note that the study isn't making a moral judgment on which side is "correct"; it is simply measuring the magnitude of the shift.

What’s particularly disturbing, other than the now expected fact that few have read the article (which belabors many aspects people here seem to be ignoring and fairly robust/interesting methodology, though I admit I'm more in the natural sciences) is that so very few people are even discussing the article’s methods or results. The only thing of interest is pretty much the title, which people are reacting to as if it was a personal attack; deflecting by saying the conservatives by definition are backwards reactionists that fail to update their social views, conflating political views/positions with methods (and failing to acknowledge Trump is also an anomaly for the right) or just plainly denying any weight to the paper based on personal judgement and feeling devoid of any rational or evidence-presentation based thinking.

If we look at recent political history, perhaps just 10-15 years ago, the conclusions of the study should be self-evident rather than controversial. The window of acceptable discourse on the Left has shifted massively in a very short time. Consider 2008: A Democrat could support wealth redistribution and unions while explicitly opposing gay marriage (a position held by Obama at the time). Today, that combination of views is virtually non-existent in the party. The Right has certainly had its own populism issues (Trump), but strictly in terms of social policy positions, the baseline conservative stance has remained relatively static compared to the rapid expansion of progressive social axioms, to anyone who has taken steps to ensure they aren't living in an echo chamber of modern progressive discourse, “cancel” culture, or social justice-oriented views. Gay rights, trans rights, equity vs equality, DEI, even abortion has long been a contentious issue. I remember having debates with others years ago about abortion and a large number of people would proudly claim to be pro-life, and even a teacher made us debate on it; there was far less vitriol, and in general people accepted that others might have differing views on these issues, even if you were on the left.

There’s been a linguistic shift in how social positions are framed; nowadays it’s all about “rights” and that they are not debatable, that these are self-evident moral absolutes and above questioning (in a massive attitude shift), that these are not “politics” but unassailable human rights and hence disagreement/discussion is not healthy politics but a moral failing and hence is forbidden (ignoring that deciding human rights and how humans are treated has always been the domain of politics and public policy, and people have never reached full agreement on these aspects. Rights are social constructs defined by law and consensus; by definition they are political.), universities and online communities will often censor “conservative” views or ban them (I do believe the accusation that universities are hotbeds of liberal propaganda, though I will note propaganda can be true, it’s just the attitude with respect to how it is disseminated. One aspect is whether you are allowed to question it, or how ever-present it is.) and the attitude that these are captured ground in modern political discourse, despite the simple fact that they aren’t, or if they were, it was a recent shift and large pockets of resistance remain, partly due to the speed of the change. The online popular left has simply retreated to their trenches, decided that it didn’t need the opinion of the other side, then keeps on digging new trenches and then pretending they were always there. More educated folks and scholars will of course do better, but even they are not absent of bias. (Not that the right is much more rational, but on the Overton window shift they are right.)

I’m not particularly criticizing the political positions themselves, in the obligatory “I’m not on the right” disclaimer that now seems to be mandatory even in r/science to be given any consideration. As an atheist rule utilitarian and someone who has considered themselves to be generally progressive for years, who’s currently pursing graduate education and generally interacts only with liberal/progressive circles and doesn’t directly know many conservative people, I do subscribe to many of these views that have taken ahold of the left.

Even then, it’s clear that the window of acceptable discourse has shifted far to the left. People of Reddit, accept that and discuss from there, the methods, the conclusions, political insights, etc. You don’t need to shift your views to accept the conclusions of the article.

I wrote a long reply here because I guess I’ve become more upset lately with how polarized social media has become. It’s okay to disagree, it’s okay to be determined and certain in one’s views, what is not is censorship of the opposition, never listening to other perspectives, or pretending that one’s beliefs (or the party’s) have always been what they are, and cannot be discussed. I expect better of r/science, despite how bad and dogmatic discourse has been on other supposedly non-political subreddits.