If you're a scientist, here's a fun game: look at the history of your field, identify someone notable in the that history--preferably someone dead for 100+ years--who had some unfortunate views, then get all bent out of shape that this person is still recognized as notable. If possible, form a committee of like-minded fellow scientists and work to strip away any honors this person may have (even though they're fucking dead and have no clue that you're doing this). For instance (my boldface): www.realclearscience.com/articles/2020/08/07/the_danger_of_scientists_on_a_pedestal_111488.html
One such figure is the 18th century Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus. He devised binomial nomenclature, the ubiquitous system now used to scientifically classify organisms by genus and species. He then used his nomenclature to classify humans by “variety,” ascribing inherently positive traits to lighter-skinned Europeans and negative traits to darker-skinned Africans and Asians, thereby laying a pseudoscientific foundation for racism that persists today. To some, this history may seem eclipsed by his scientific accolades, but others still feel the knee of his ideas on their necks.
As a scientist, I can see both sides of this (not saying that I fully agree with either side, though). I agree that the bolded part above is a really stupid hot take. Linnaeus apparently had a tremendous impact on the field (from what I understand; it's not my research area) for things that have little to nothing to do with his arguably racist beliefs. Kinda dumb to throw the baby out with the bath water. Part of me thinks that if a cure for cancer is ever found, but the person who discovers it posted something questionable on Twitter years before, that SJWs would "cancel" them and refuse to take it.
On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of naming things after scientists, because that puts the focus on a person rather than the science, which can lead to issues like this. In a way, this situation is somewhat similar to controversies over Confederate monuments. If a scientist was a flaming bigot, then I don't think they should be lionized. We can accept the good scientific ideas they had while also condemning the fact that they held shitty views on fellow groups of humans. These types of controversies can mostly be avoided in the future if we just don't name things after scientists and instead focus on the actual science.
But, it can get out of hand, like the recent decision by NASA to rename potentially problematic things like the "Eskimo Nebula." Maybe that's a hugely offensive name to someone somewhere, but I kinda doubt it. Rationally, it's no more "insensitive" than if it'd been called the "American Nebula." But, whatever. I'm not sure anyone could reasonably make a "it's just like calling a football team 'Redskins'" argument; maybe more like calling a team the Blackhawks. Either way, seems much ado about nothing.
It's funny, I clicked on the article because of its title--"The Danger of Scientists on a Pedestal"--because that title suggested something very different to me. Then, three paragraphs in, I hit that "knee on the neck" bit. It was tough to take the writer seriously after that, but I can allow that he has some reasonable points. Still, by and large nobody really cares about controversies like this, anymore than they care about (the lack of) women grandmasters in chess.
That said, I'm with you on naming stuff after scientists, especially dead ones. Because they're dead and thus have no clue that they're being honored, so what's the point? Really, I've come to feel this way about naming stuff in general.