Because others are also undergoing this. What fallacy is this?

I listened to a podcast of Sam Harris and Rebecca Traister.

They have a discussion and Sam tries to argue that people are fired wrongfully by angry groups of people in protest (which are correctly called a mob, namely a group of people with potentially malicious intent (and I think throwing rocks and shouting is malicious, no matter if the cause is just or not)).

The argument goes as follows:

S: Some innocent people that are not powerful are getting fired because they say something that makes people in a minority group angry. (the not powerful he adds because Rebecca is mostly concerned with hierarchy "abuse")

R: A lot of people are wrongfully fired all the time for reasons far less, therefore we shouldn’t be concerned by this.

What fallacy is Rebecca committing at this moment?

Because claiming that because others are getting the same for far less as a premise for why it is not important feels like a red herring or some related fallacy. Could this be the fallacy of relative privation?

Further Rebecca commits a lot of fallacies that are to be expected by social justice warrior or activist feminist. And I don't mean to say that I dislike feminists or SJW's, because I don't. However, they do tend to commit a set of fallacies, probably due to the emotional nature of (perceived?) social and or systemic injustice.

I would say that's a red herring as the arguer might be trying to divert the discussion from the bad causes (that her allies are guilty of) of getting people fired to other worse causes that get people fired.

As a Red Herring, R's statement certainly doesn't bring us any closer to the truth. As a Strawman, R dismisses Sam's claim by marginalizing it - " it happens all the time, therefore it's not important". Ultimately, it just comes off as a thought-terminating cliché rather than a classic fallacy -although it's a close one.

"Whataboutery" initial comes to mind, which isn't fallacious, but a form of avoiding the issue. Consider the following:

Person 1: People are robbing banks, and this is a problem.
Person 2: People are doing a lot worse than robbing banks, therefore, we shouldn't worry about bank robbers.

The only time when this line of reasoning makes sense is when resources are limited to the extent where addressing the less urgent issue would mean that the more urgent issue does not get adequate attention. I would not agree that his applies to the situation in the post.

As for relative privation , (trying to make a scenario appear better or worse by comparing it to the best or worst case scenario) that could fit. "People losing jobs because of mob isn't that bad because it's better than ...."