I can see both sides of this argument as valid points.
On one side, inactivity against something abhorrent does mean that...well, you aren't doing anything about the abhorrent thing. At the same time, does that mean that you are a bad person because you aren't fighting against the abhorrent thing?
Let's look at this by putting the idea into perspective:
If America decided to sit aside during World War II rather than being involved, would we be bad guys? Well, we lambasted many countries for NOT participating in stopping the Nazi regime.
If a neighborhood watch program doesn't exist, does that mean that crime is more rampant? No, not necessarily.
I don't know. Every scenario I can find that would say "inactivity = guilt" is based on a case-by-case ideal.
With this "inactivity against sexism is guilt of promoting sexism" argument, I can say that gaming journalism has done a lot to showcase the sexism that exists within video games. At the same time, I can also say that the gamers themselves are generally sexist, even if they don't realize that they are.
So in all honesty, I just don't think there's a winning scenario here. It's an industry full of sexism, but no one wants to stop the sexism en masse. It's a difficult scenario. I don't think Jim is COMPLETELY right, but I think that Jim makes good points.
Except the argument isn't "doing nothing makes you as bad as the sexist" it's "claiming sexism doesn't exist in the gaming community is as problematic as sexism in the gaming community".