Jim claims that doing nothing would have been the best option.
What's the premise of this statement?
It is that for any claim to be challenged, it has to be challenged by rational means by mostly everyone, and if it is not, the other side is free to dismiss any and all claims against it.
In this worldview there are only two possible binary options, "yes" or "no", with the style of presentation determining the truth.
Under such a definition, people like Anita are free to manipulate and manufacture rhetorical "against" positions in order to shield their own position from refutation.
Indeed, this is exactly what Anita craftily did, by leaving her comments page open only long enough to take some choice words and publish them on her Kickstarter page as a demonstration of "why" her project is so very "needed", then close down the comment page before any rational criticism could be leveled. In other words, she got what she wanted: a straw man of bigotry manufactured by her to represent all possible rebuttals to her position. It's quite magical.
But this kind of charade could not work if it were not enabled and excused by people like Jim.
Jim says "the trolls" had the power to ignore her. By why does he not tell Anita that she has the power to ignore the trolls?
Isn't the goal that we can all debate civilly and rationally so ideas can get a fair shake (or fair throttling)? Why is it that Anita then gets special treatment? Why are the "trolling accusers" culpable for their words, but she not culpable for basking in those words and playing them up as some kind of protective cloak against any and all attacks? Why is she given a position of privilege that others do not also enjoy?
Bang on target, Jim.
That's all I can say on this one.
The monster we have created,
All she does is scream truths we already knew,
She is not much of a monster to fear, is she?