When you call attention to errors (factual or grammatical) in Jami Lin’s work her shrill responses read like a class in the structure of faulty arguments.

Validity, truth, and soundness.

Demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to evaluate the form of the arguments she’s protesting.

No effort to determine whether the arguments are valid or relatively sound.

No effort to analyze the validity.

A true premise to an argument does not conflict with what you know or understand to be true, it doesn’t require you to believe or to accept unsupported information that conflicts with what you know or understand to be true, and it bears the proper burden of proof.
Lin additionally jeopardizes her arguments (that is, she initiates a logical fallacy) by intentionally shifting the burden of proof to avoid offering support for her premises.

The red herring

Dredging up stories and material that are not part of the discussion; seeking to “win” the argument by leading attention away from the issue and introducing another topic. (I refer to this as “Oh, look! There goes the Pope!”)

A need for approval also compels her to enlist cheerleaders, which is yet another diversionary tactic.

The straw man.

Ignoring the actual position of the person she’s arguing with and substituting a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of that position — roughly the same concept as burning an effigy, which is where the term originated.

Loaded questions, complex claims.

Constructing her complaints in such a way that her questions are supposed to dictate the answers. (Of course, answering a loaded question with a loaded question is the best answer.)

False dilemmas.

Choosing between the two options she provides does not exhaust your choices (the dilemma is false).