I don't want to discuss whether sabine is making argument in bad faith or not. Or if she us just cherry picking claims from couple of researchers among thousands working/ed on LHC. But it is inaccurate to say the LHC is built to search for supersymmetry. The original motivation for LHC was Higgs search, we didn't have enough energy in Tevatron so people proposed LHC. There are other motivations like studying dark matter, interactions of quarks and glouns at high energies, b physics and matter- anti matter asymmetry, and Beyond standard models searches where many of the proposed models where SUSY (but not limited to).
I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to judge if ignoring all these and focus on SUSY ia bad faith argument or not. But one of my problems with sabine is that how usually she goes from premises to conclusions which in many cases does not work out well.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I think you might be inadvertently side-stepping my point. My argument was not about whether the LHC should have been built. It was about whether or not it was a valid justification put forward. I think the LHC should have been built. And while I can't say for sure, I'm pretty sure Sabine would as well. I think in that same video she calls out that it was built for the Higgs, so no discrepancy there.
But it still side steps the point - which is a false justification being provided by people who either should have or did know better - and that never being acknowledged or addressed.