People seem to take it as some sort of impressive critique of statistics and the scientific method. Similar to "there is a Replication Crisis, vaguely speaking, so your bigot facts don't matter." No, the replication crisis is mostly a function of low sample sizes and misinterpretation, if a paper has a decent number of people and isn't being interpreted by an activist (like, ie, the social researchers themselves), it's valid.
Same thing here, this is only impressive to people who don't know how to interpret statistics.
How can you think this is a critique of statistics? People are liking it because it's a clever brand of internet snark involving knowledge of statistics. You can say it's shallow and just for people who want to flatter themselves with how knowledgable they are, but it's hardly a critique of the field of statistics, just a critique of bad statistics.
