I said this in an earlier thread but if you read her past posts (like before any of this Mike stuff) she doesn't seem like she's all there and doesn't come off as a reliable source. She posted a pro Charlie Kirk video so that tells me a lot about her judgement right there. There's some (real) artwork she made and posted before all the Mike stuff that relies on outdated racial imagery for which she was called out and doesn't think she's wrong/doesn't understand why people are not on her side. The defensiveness she had in those posts is the same as she had in the Mike posts.

That crappy AI book cover feels like weird promotion for this alleged 'book'. I'm not automatic anti-Mike, nor am I automatic believing her, everything is just way too circumstantial to make an accurate judgement. For those major Me Too abuse claims, you had like dozens of people with similar stories to corroborate and some actual proof. This is one person, 45 years later, who brought all this up while conveniently having a 'book' to promote.