No, I'm being realistic. It's not logical to join a group that restricts your freedom. If, for whatever reason, Nazis were subjugating men, I'd be just as mystified as to why Campbell would join. If it were a group that subjugated men, I wouldn't be as surprised to see Zito join it, because it would be in her best…

Are you reading the comments? No one is silent about her.

Could she have? Of course. We have no way of knowing. But why would someone willingly choose to join a movement that restricts their rights along with the rights of others without any logical reason? They wouldn't, right? Unless they were mentally ill, probably, yes? It's a fair jump to make...

Completely understand where you're coming from. All I ever meant to say was that hers is likely a complicated case. She's probably a victim and an abuser, which is incredibly common but it makes up more than one linear thought, so most people can't handle it.

I know you're a troll, but seriously? You can't read through these comments and see that everyone here detests her actions as much as his?

I don't think she's a special victim...just a victim. She's a victim in a different way than the dude because he's still privileged within the belief system (if you can call it that) that inherently oppresses her. So she's not only victimized by this oppressive belief system (if you can call it that), she's victimized…

It doesn't have to be one or the other. She can be a terrible person and be a victim, too. She was probably raised thinking she was always the property of a man, and that's shitty no matter what else you were taught to believe. You can pity someone and still not agree with every shitty idea they cling to.

Is it a sad existence, knowing you have literally nothing better to do than this?

And in doing so, you were illogical.

We're not talking about what I said. We're talking about the claims you made. They're two parts of a similar argument. Do you not see the difference?

Changing your mind and believing new things isn't self-censorship. It's changing your mind.

You said it was invalid because it serves no purpose. I gave purposes it could serve.

But you haven't disproven any of my points which disprove yours, so I'm guessing you're done?

But again, this is all based on your opinion of invalid. You haven't proven that these criticisms are invalid or even raised any challenges to the points I made in support of this criticism's validity.

But if they're that affected by it, they can't handle the art world. You always have to be worried that someone could potentially be offended. It's just reality.

No, it's not de facto censorship. You still have every right to tell the joke, you just don't get to tell people how to respond.

But who judges which forms of criticism are valid? There are thousands upon thousands of types of criticisms for the thousands upon thousands of types of art. You seem to be saying the ones that are invalid are the ones that "censor" art somehow, but no critic can actually force an artist to not create art without…

You said "...there are criticisms that should not be used to limit art." So there exist criticisms that shouldn't be used, yes? So you're saying they shouldn't happen, and are therefore censoring them.

Sure it is. If they don't want a bad reaction from anyone anytime, they should just not tell the joke or only tell a select group of people that have sworn not to criticize them in a way that makes them upset ever.

But this is a reaction. No one's saying you can't express yourself creatively, they're saying you're not free from criticism just because it's art. There will be reactions, good and bad, to just about anything. You're free to create the art, but you have to realize that people are going to see it and have every right…