This post captures one of the ugliest changes in academic science. An aggrieved trainee endorses a hit piece about his mentor and declares authority over what should be done with millions of dollars in research funding. He makes vague public insinuations about the mentor who built the laboratory and gave him the opportunity to work there, offers no specific facts that can be evaluated, and then claims authority over where the money should go. There is no gratitude for the opportunity he was given and no remorse for the career, laboratory, body of work, and scientific legacy being destroyed. 2010s grievance politics taught trainees that personal dissatisfaction conferred moral and scientific authority. Decades of knowledge, infrastructure, funding, and accomplishment meant nothing. Social media supplied the mob, while administrators supplied the investigations and institutional force. They call it speaking truth to power. What it really is is helping powerful administrators destroy a scientist’s career, dismantle the laboratory he spent decades building, and then claiming entitlement to the ruins.