"At least Cramer allowed comments!"
This again? Really? You know that by disabling comments all she did was prevent trolls from plaguing her videos with their vitriol, right? You get that anybody anywhere is still free to say whatever they want about her work, right? You understand that criticism of Sarkeesian's work is positively thriving, both in volume and in attention received, right? This whole "Sarkeesian is preventing criticism of her work by disabling comments" narrative is flimsy as shit. FFS, even her detractors have acknowledged that that was the only reasonable thing to do. Anything but the point, I guess.
Tanoomba do you imagine that if Anita agreed to an interview with thunderfoot that he would just spit on her and try to physically fight her?
I don't imagine she would agree to such an interview since Thunderf00t has made it pretty clear his goal is to destroy her reputation and he has no qualms about being a dishonest and manipulative asshole to do so. She'd have to be a fool to allow him an opportunity to do that to her face. After all, she wouldn't be responding to a comedy bit, she'd be responding to a personal attack, and unless TF would be willing to admit he was wrong and apologize for lying about her, he'd have to double down on his dishonest tactics to try to save face (which is almost certainly what would happen).
Having said that, let's say there were an alternate dimension where Thunderf00t was capable of some level of integrity and honesty and Sarkeesian did agree to a good faith interview intended to provide her with an opportunity to defend herself. She would do way better than Cramer did because, unlike Cramer, she actually has a defensible stance. She could absolutely explain how she didn't misrepresent Hitman, how nothing that TF claimed she was lying about was a lie at all. Unlike Cramer, whose own recorded words left him speechless, Sarkeesian's own words would provide the context TF excluded in his attack pieces and prove his assertions wrong.
But again, when someone calls you "a liar without shame" while simultaneously misrepresenting your position to prove his point, you'd be forgiven for assuming this guy is not about to give you a fair shot at telling your side of the story.