If a billionaire follows along behind the mob, cutting people down from trees and resuscitating them, it severely diminishes the power of the mob.
Whether you think this is a good thing or not probably depends on whether you're part of the lynch mob, but it's hard to imagine being neutral about this.
This is the kind of weird discussion we don't have to have if we just wait to see if any of this matters before trying to parse it as an important story.
2. As a result, they want to end his career.
3. A billionaire came along and undermined those efforts, by providing Sabatini with independent funding.
4. The people who decided that Sabatini's career should be ended are upset by this.
Sure, nobody is being literally lynched; but the fundamental story -- people being upset that their ability to exercise extrajudicial punishment is being undermined -- is the same.
If you ask people to be upset about things, they will oblige you. Here, it seems like you're more or less begging for it.
And there is one side saying "omg this guy is a good researcher and the mob is out to get him".
And there is tptaceck saying "none of this matters and you are both obnoxious".
That's my interpretation of it - I do not endorse any particular statement.
noun a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
a correspondence or partial similarity.
a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
Similarly, if a journalist talks about a "political earthquake" or a "horse race" they don't mean that the earth is literally moving or that politicians are literally equine.
For my part, I don't concede that there was anything like a witch hunt here. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, or to evaluate your own opinion. I did some reading, read the complaint in the guy's lawsuit, and none of this is clear to me. All I know is that I mentioned the guy's name near some biotech people and got "no mercy for anybody who Photoshops their western blots". I don't know what that means, so take it for what it's worth.
Also, have you read the definition I copy-pasta’d?
Finally, as other have already commented, your framing is wrong: he hasn’t just been fired, but it’s being argued that his mere professional existence is a threat, and there are more morally sound individuals that deserve the resources spent on him. That’s not “just being fired”