>> 2. that an idea is more likely to be true simply because it hurts people's feelings.

I suspect, given two hypotheses- one that is politically correct and one that isn't- the politically incorrect one will be held to a much higher standard of evidence required due to confirmation bias and people acting as described in the article.

If you look at psychology, the politically incorrect results (IQ) have much better evidence despite being constantly attacked. Compare that to say, priming and sterotype threat - which everyone wanted to believe in.

Nobody is claiming (2). IMO (1) is plain wrong, I believe there is positive utility in pursuit and subsequent discovery of the truth, even if such truth is "purely hurtful" - it still allows us to structure our society and plan our future better (i.e. readjust our goals so that they are realistic (not impossible / in conflict with reality) and figure out better ways to achieve them), taking strictly more (and better) information into account.

Does the pursuit of truth, with no tangible outcomes, count as a perceived positive impact? (I'd argue it does)

We are talking about a research paper, a paper that can be scientifically refuted. The only reason much of abuse of power and non-scientific angles of attack are because there are no strong scientific refutations.

This is not about my feeling vs your feelings, it is about your tribe vs my tribe. Simple! The whole article is about the opposing faction was obsessed about Alt-Right or Conservatives using this paper as a basis of their arguments.