A more full quote:

The issue is the process, which resembles a witch hunt that is entirely in the hands of a bunch of self-righteous, self-appointed sherrifs, and that is clearly not designed to find truth. Simone Schnall is Rosa Parks — a powerless woman who has decided to risk everything to call out the bullies.

So, it's a "witch hunt", an attempt to prime the reader with the idea that it's part of a misogynistic attack by the powers that be. So we've got a partial on Victim, Oppressors and Bullies already.

By "sherrifs", note, casting them as authority figures with power rather than students, lower in the pecking order than the professor. A partial on Oppressors and Bullies.

it's "clearly not designed to find truth", implying it's just an attack for the sake of bullying.

Next, getting explicit. that "Simone Schnall is Rosa Parks". a full on attempt to leech off the image of a historical oppressed, poor, minority figure Victim™ facing the Oppressors™/Bullies™/Privileged™.

finishing by implying that rather than just being a fairly senior academic who's work hasn't been replicated and is behaving in a manner entirely consistent with pure self interest she's just a "a powerless woman who has decided to risk everything to call out the bullies."

In another case they suggested that the people who do replications are juniors who don't know how research is done and fail to get replications because of their lack of research skill.

You assume that these 2 tactics are mutually exclusive. people love to try to cash in on both.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/9b/help_help_im_being_oppressed/

But one common thread in psychology is that the mind very frequently wants to have its cake and eat it too. Last week, we agreed that people like supporting the underdog, but we also agreed that there's a benefit to being on top; that when push comes to shove a lot of people are going to side with Zug instead of Urk. What would be really useful in winning converts would be to be a persecuted underdog who was also very powerful and certain to win out. But how would you do that?

Some Republicans have found a way. Whether they're in control of the government or not, the right-wing blogosphere invariably presents them as under siege, a rapidly dwindling holdout of Real American Values in a country utterly in the grip of liberalism.

But they don't say anything like "Everyone's liberal, things are hopeless, might as well stay home." They believe in a silent majority. Liberals control all sorts of nefarious institutions that are currently exercising a stranglehold on power and hiding the truth, but most Americans, once you pull the wool off their eyes, are conservatives at heart and just as angry about this whole thing as they are. Any day now, they're going to throw off the yoke of liberal tyranny and take back their own country.

This is a great system. Think about it. Not only should you support the Republicans for support-the-underdog and level-the-playing-field reasons, you should also support them for majoritarian reasons and because their side has the best chance of winning. It's the best possible world short of coming out and saying "Insofar as it makes you want to vote for us, we are in total control of the country, but insofar as that makes you not want to vote for us, we are a tiny persecuted minority who need your help".

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

"Insofar as it makes you want to support her, the replicators are junior, inept, inexperienced and have no authority, but insofar as that makes you not want to support her, she is a poor persecuted underdog who need your help and is being attacked by the powerful authority figures".