I agree that Anita's criticism is often flawed, and that this is a problem.
Largely because when she does have a valid point.. her fuckups ruin it, since people just go "Oh, but look! She was WRONG here..." with the implication that obviously her overarching argument is just as wrong.
Now, granted, I don't believe a 'flawless victory' on her part would have prevented backlash either. The sorts of people that reacted particularly viciously are displaying a knee-jerk response to something they value & consider themselves entitled to: 'uncensored' (that is: static, unchanging, stagnant) videogames that display values they personally agree with, and none that they disagree with.
If she had fewer mistakes, the response likely would not have been that different; it's still the same perceived 'threat', and thus liable to provoke the same predictable response from the affected parties.


As for Cards Against Humanity, the general reasoning behind various cards (not just the one singled out) being removed is that they're not as funny as originally thought.
Is the 'passable transvestites' card really a hill people are choosing to die on?
Do they treasure the comic value of transphobic implications so much that it's something they're willing to condemn both the people hurt by it (& the attitudes it represents) and the game developers that agreed it was a shitty card?
I mean, CAH is a game that can be very different amongst different groups of people.
There are some selections people will find hilarious, some to which they will response with horror-tinged respect, & some that will be considered 'too far'.
(& of course those picks that are just not funny, usually because someone had a crap hand for whatever was played or was dumping unfunny/awkward cards.)

There's this weird conflict where Gamergaters are insisting that developers not allow external forces to influence their games, and yet there's a backlash when developers choose to (of their own volition, since CAH could easily have said "look, the game has the potential to offend a lot of different groups of people; just remove the card from your own games" ) alter their own product.
You can't have that both ways. You can't say "Don't allow people to influence what you decide to do with YOUR art" and then turn around and go "Don't do THAT with it! Fuck you! Fucking SJWs ruin everything!".
Like, really?
I mean, there was that furore from the same elements regarding a male NPC in a certain popular RPG that MIGHT maybe hit on a male PC, and/or that heterosexual male gamers were being left out or bullied or oppressed or someshit because of choices those developers had made.

The Witcher is a good example really. The world is pretty much an awful hellhole full of awful (human) things.
The first game kind of displayed shitty things on the parts of the devs/players, and this has been addressed moving forward and noted as being an immature thing to do.
The world itself is still the same. Same ol' hellhole (as far as I know; presumably Witcher III retained that atmosphere).
I've not really heard much (if any) feminist/SJW criticism about a 'realistic' portrayal of a sexist racist whatever-else-is-in-there-that-I've-forgotten setting.
So really it's more to do with how that is handled.
ie: You can portray a shitty setting or a shitty behaviour... and if you do so well then nobody's going to raise issue.
(Usually that means portraying it as a Bad Thing. Either explicitly through in-universe criticism or the 'heroes' condemning it, or implicitly through it just resulting in shitty things and a crapsack world.
Alternatively, it can be done externally via the creator/s saying it's a shitty thing to do and that whatever characters or groups espousing such beliefs are not nice/good people.)

I'm pretty sure white dudes can take some crit' anyway. They're confident self-assured modern men, right?
If someone is ignorant, they can address they by informing themselves.
If someone is doing a shitty thing, they should experience shame (being as it is one of the primary social modifiers).
If someone is neither of those things, they can shrug and move on with their lives.
Simples.


(Short version:
It's not about 'laughing at an inappropriate joke' so much as 'are you laughing because it's awful or are you laughing because you agree with the shitty thing?'.)