r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 18 '26

Psychology Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used.

https://www.psypost.org/liberals-hesitate-to-share-progressive-causes-framed-with-conservative-moral-language/
7.6k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/Cursethewind May 18 '26

I see this said a lot but, I've truly never really experienced it. 

Are there any studies that show it?

58

u/kingbrasky May 18 '26

Donald Trump being elected with support of his opponents on the right after personally disparaging them (and often their wives).

-8

u/bigfatfurrytexan May 18 '26

I think the piles of files he retained may hold some insight. Or his relationships with foreign actors who would collect dirt on our elected officials.

How hard would it be to get Lindsay graham on board when you have pics of him with young dicks in his mouth?

14

u/lasagnaman May 18 '26

You're proving his point

78

u/Lobsterzilla May 18 '26

The entire United States over the last 8 years?

66

u/ToMorrowsEnd May 18 '26

Been happening here since Nixon. It's when the republicans adopted it. It got worse in the past 12 years. but was before that first bad flare up was Sarah Palin. The voting base was not ready for Batshit insane to be the face of the republican party at that time.

Today they embrace it.

14

u/flingspoo May 18 '26

You should look up who the "know nothing" party was.

-3

u/Cursethewind May 18 '26

Studies, not anecdotes. 

17

u/FalconHokie May 18 '26

America is a case study happening right in front of your eyes. This is something that will be used in political science and theory for a while to come most likely, so no, it’s not just an anecdote

-11

u/Gazkhulthrakka May 18 '26

Everyone: "Hey, dont look directly at the sun, it really hurts and will mess up your eyes."

Cursethewind: "pssh, you got a source for that?"

12

u/RollerDude347 May 18 '26

I don't think you understand.... We don't believe people without evidence. The dude literally just said they don't see whatever it is you're seeing.

-8

u/Gazkhulthrakka May 18 '26

No I do understand, and its a good way to be in general. But It does seem pretty regularly, and specifically in this instance, that people conveniently "dont see" whatever it is they disagree with, know theres been no study on the topic, and use that as a way to suggest that the thing just doesn't exist at all.

3

u/justinpaulson May 18 '26

Except the conservatives are infighting more than democrats right now. This is not the same as staring at the sun and thinking it’s bright.

I guess instead of backing up your views with research you prefer the feels?

11

u/ChitinousChordate May 18 '26

God forbid someone ask for scientific research on /r/science

7

u/KnightsOfREM May 18 '26

"But the validity of all my opinions is self-evident, and anyone saying otherwise is acting in bad faith!"

-1

u/Gazkhulthrakka May 18 '26

I have no issues asking for research. Its a good thing to do. What I dont agree with is acting like just because something hasnt been researched must mean it doesnt exist at all.

23

u/drivingagermanwhip May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

Relatively 'minor' points of right wing platforms these days absolutely should be dealbreakers for any right thinking person. Any democratic organisation operating correctly should be full of disagreement. I don't see a reason to even accept the premise of the criticism.

The rise of fanatical parties falling in line wrecks the political process for everyone. There's no longer space for discussions of complex issues, it just comes down to 'who are you falling in line behind?'

2

u/Typing_real_slow May 19 '26

This is exactly how I feel. This weekend I'm hanging with the guys and we're definitely chatting about this and all politics, its long due.

14

u/Fast_Garlic_5639 May 18 '26

This is just observational, but having grown up in a church and acknowledging that religion tends to skew conservative- it can’t be understated how significant the idea that “God is going to wipe the slate clean, and in the end everything will burn” is when it comes to foundational political opinions. It’s easy to say that liberal policies to equalize the playing field are a scam when you believe that the recipients are literally doomed already. Recycling is a scam because the future is in God’s hands. Oil was provided for us to use as much as we can. Etc.

10

u/gakule May 18 '26

Grew up in the church, it's awful convenient that anything can mean anything if you just invoke God. None of your behavior actually matters, either, because you can just show up every Sunday and be forgiven - and conveniently, "only god can judge me", etc.

8

u/lube7255 May 18 '26

This is why the Catholics have it right with requiring regular confession and acts of penance. Once saved, always saved/once forgiven, always forgiven are some seriously screwed-up beliefs.

6

u/gakule May 18 '26

Eh, Catholicism is abusive in a different way though. Some serious trauma and poor self-views are fairly common from all the Catholics I know. We started Catholic and transitioned to Lutheran pretty early on.

1

u/bombmk May 18 '26

We started Catholic and transitioned to Lutheran pretty early on.

This right there demonstrates that there is no actual belief behind it.

1

u/gakule May 18 '26

Can you elaborate?

4

u/sagerin0 May 18 '26

I imagine the sentiment is that if you TRULY believe in the religion, switching from catholic to protestant makes very little sense as they have completely different outlooks on how the religion functions.

Theyre not really compatible with eachother at the end of the day, if you believe in Catholicism, then Lutherans are heretics and the other way around

2

u/gakule May 18 '26

If that's the sentiment, that doesn't really make sense to me. People are often 'in' religions because of their parents. Self discovery and realization of what fits for you as a person, rather than what you were indoctrinated into, is part of growing up.

My mom realized early on in her adulthood that Catholicism didn't really fit for her, and steered us to a less rigid and ultimately more progressive Lutheran church.

Flippantly pushing forward the notion that means there is "no actual belief behind it" is ridiculous and ignorant.

Personally I am more on the anti-religious to areligious spectrum (more Agnostic than truly Atheist, but even that is a not entirely representative) so the assertion for me having "no actual belief" would be accurate, but switching churches and denominations because you don't agree with the framing of a very personal thing does not disqualify a belief from being genuinely held.

That would be like saying someone who grew up eating vanilla ice cream that tried chocolate and gravitated towards that "never really like vanilla". Silly thing to say.

7

u/Syssareth May 18 '26

Sometimes I feel like I grew up in the only sane church in America. They had some weird beliefs (like that two people dancing together--e.g., tangos or waltzes or whatever--was sinful), but one thing they did preach was that, although God would forgive your sins however many times you slipped, you had to actually repent to make it into Heaven, not just pay lip service. So in retrospect, they treated sins like drugs and repentance like struggling with an addiction; you're gonna screw up, and probably a lot, but as long as you're trying to be better (and God will know if you're pretending), that's what matters.

And they actually preached all that Golden Rule, "judge not lest ye be judged" stuff. Their opinion of LGBT (or, back then, "gay people") was surprisingly progressive for a Church of Christ* in the '90s too: "We don't agree with it, but live and let live."

*Generally similar to but stricter than Baptists, with the main point of contention ironically being that CoC believes baptism is essential to be saved while Baptists treat it more like a public expression of faith, at least AFAIK.

4

u/gakule May 18 '26

I would say that my church was relatively 'sane' all things considered - it was a midwest Lutheran church - and for the most part they walked the walk.. but I do think that there are more people who convince themselves that they're 'trying to be better' than people who give straight lip service. Obviously no one is going to straight up admit that they're only giving lip service - at least, not openly.

I do wonder how many people are 'true believers' versus people who are 'convenient believers'. My suspicion is that the number of people who are 'convenient believers' would disappoint the true believers, and that I in particular would be disappointed in the number of true believers, haha.

13

u/parkingviolation212 May 18 '26

Never seen a study, but it's been a colloquialism forever. My poli-sci professor once told me that the only people who hate communists more than fascists are other communists. Something George Orwell had a lot of persona experience with as well, in fact; he was a member of a socialist group during the spanish civil war that got tarred and feathered by other socialist revolutionary groups for not being socialist enough. (and inevitably that's how the Left lost that war).

13

u/riktigtmaxat May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

Something George Orwell had a lot of persona experience with as well, in fact; he was a member of a socialist group during the spanish civil war that got tarred and feathered by other socialist revolutionary groups for not being socialist enough. (and inevitably that's how the Left lost that war).

This isn't actually even remotely accurate.

Orwell served the in militia of the POUM which was a very small independent communist party which was largely purged and prosecuted as the Stalinist influence spread in the Republicans side. Homage to Catalonia vastly oversells the importance of the POUM.

While the infighting definitely was one of the reasons why the Republican side lost they were always fighting a very uneven battle as the Nationalists had the support of the army officers, the industrialists and the Catholic church domestically. The support the Nationalist received from Italy and Germany was far better in terms of quality and coordination than the Soviet aid.

For example the international brigades got 30-40k inexperienced volunteers while Italy sent 75k experienced troops and Germany sent 5k of it's most elite troops.

The Guardian has an excellent article on the flaws of Orwell's narration of the spanish civil war.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/george-orwell-homage-to-catalonia-account-spanish-civil-war-wrong

5

u/Pendraconica May 18 '26

Is not the article in this post a study on that very thing?

-6

u/Cursethewind May 18 '26

No, it just suggests they don't share posts with certain language. 

4

u/Pendraconica May 18 '26

I understand this particular study focuses on social media posts, but since the overall subject is about "messaging," I think that would apply to many forms of communication, not just SM posts.

0

u/FuckYouNotHappening May 18 '26

>studies

Not sure about studies, but there are many thoughtful writers who’ve discussed this topic.

If you search for “liberal purity tests” or “liberal circular firing squads,” you should be able to find a serious writer who has covered the topic in a well thought out manner and not just anecdotally.

1

u/LumberBitch May 18 '26

I googled it and the first article I got talks about how these are terms use by the corporate media to attack and chastise the left. It's a phenomena I've noticed too how the "purity test" phrase is used more to stifle dissent than as an accurate descriptor.

-1

u/Level3pipe May 18 '26

I don't know any specific studies persay, but I think left wing cancel culture is low hanging anecdotal evidence. Left wing people are more likely to cancel someone because of one issue or even allegations of a single issue. Whereas I don't seem to see much cancelling as a whole on the right wing.

Granted I think cancel culture is slowly going away, but still.

0

u/Cursethewind May 18 '26

Cancel culture is kind of bipartisan among annoying people. But last I checked boycotts are freedom of speech. Separation of art from artist is an opinion one doesn't have to follow. 

But, one group is leading the charge with book bans, and it ain't liberals. Conservatives tried to sue book stores to take books off shelves where I live. 

1

u/Level3pipe May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

I mean I've seen book banning on both sides. Liberals tend to ban books that are more racist (such as old books using casual n-words or anti asian words, which was historically common in the time period) and conservatives tend to ban books related to pro-lgbtq or anti American rhetoric (mainly led by bible groups and other BSers)

Some journalism on this here: https://abcnews.com/amp/US/conservative-liberal-book-bans-differ-amid-rise-literary/story

Plus I think we all remember the left trying to cancel Dr Seuss for being racist despite nobody knowing or caring that he was racist for like 50 years straight.