It's pretty absurd to blame her for interpretations that you have drawn.BinDipper said:Then we factor in the larger context that she is a political figure who actively declares her intent to change the industry, and suddenly the idea that she might want to encourage censorship of some form isn't very farfetched. I suppose you could call this part extrapolation/interpretation.
But that's politics, be clear and consistent in your message or different people will interpret it in different ways. Anita is not clear and consistent in her message so different people have interpreted it in different ways.
She did not say something. You inferred it, and then assumed it was in her message.
It is based entirely-- entirely-- on your own assumption. You cannot lay that on her, unless you equally assume that everybody who criticises art wants it censored.BinDipper said:My conclusion was that the interpretation that Anita advocates for censorship is completely legitimate and I've shown that's 100% correct.
And I disagree, people do wish, they just don't have the means to act on their wishes. And the ones that do, will.
In fact, I would have as much basis to assume that you want to have Anita Sarkeesian censored.
It could indeed easily be said. Many things could easily be said, regardless of the evidence in their favour.BinDipper said:In any case encouraging people to self-censor on the grounds that it'll be less offensive to your political beliefs is still advocating censorship. It could easily be said that Anita has taken action against freedom of thought.
Lucky for you I wasn't talking about that directly.