Anyway, back to Baked Alaska...

NAZI SIGHTED! I take it all back!





He sucks at math too! String him up! 304 x 45 + 800 = 14480. God damn Nazi math.

Quote: (12-27-2016 05:50 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

There are several prominent members who definitely fit that profile.

Really? Because I can think of one or two not-super-prominent people who are a bit more open to the ideas in line with some of the neonazi positions. I haven't yet seen anyone espousing actual hardcore neonazi ideas here.

Of course, I have no doubt a fair few people here think I'm a borderline neonazi. I'm not. So whatever. I think there's quite a bit of variation in what people consider "neonazi" positions. I get my idea of what neonazism is from actually looking up their platform.

I see the lamentation that the forum politics have changed over the years and I simply do not share the regret of that change. Last year I got a big suspension for pointing out anti-white racism and left the forum for almost a year because of it, though I stayed in touch with a lot of guys I met through the forum. If the general personality of the forum was not to my mind more reasonable now, I never would've come back. It is what it is. Groups change. People come and go. Nothing in life is static.

Fair enough, I'll agree to disagree. No punching to the right.

Quote: (12-27-2016 05:51 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Mike posted his side of the story over at D&P: https://www.dangerandplay.com/anthime-gi...ska-drama/

It's spin.

He left out his own tirade against Baked Alaska in the messages, trying to present himself as the level headed adult talking to the overemotional child. And he presented that "stabbed in the back by a jew" thing as something BA created when it was something he just retweeted, created by @HightechLowlife88 (88 = DOB, or Heil Hitler? Honestly don't know).

There are other issues in this affair too that I can't prove with screenshots so I won't get into them.

I came into this last night with no idea what was going on, FWIW. I've spent most of December writing in a cabin in the woods of Appalachia, 8 miles from a cell signal. I am not on a mission to tear Mike down; I was on his side of the Richard Spencer fight, because I think that was a huge tactical error. He's just not exactly behaving in good faith in this affair, in my opinion.

Quote:Quote:

There's not just a schism in the 'alt-right', there's also a schism opening up on the forum it seems from various factions, and this needs to be ironed out if we're going to be a united front

Nothing needs to be manually ironed out. I don't care what your views are as long as you follow the rules and fit into the community by not starting trouble. The forum has both hardcore multiculturalists/Marxists and far-right extremists. This is the place where they can co-exist and talk. We now have race threads where no one gets warned/banned, which wasn't the case just a couple years ago.

Don't attack others, don't hijack threads, don't troll, and we'll be fine.

Personally, I think that's less important. The "new right" is always going to attract some racist socialist hopefuls(the type who mistakenly think that racism is our cause, never mind that small government and a rule of law would preclude any state-sponsored racism).

The best way to handle them is to use the same tactic that feminists use. Decry them as being "not real conservatives". As they say, you can't nail down water and this also has the secondary benefit of marginalizing those types.

Failure to keep the crazies out of the pilot's seat is why the leftist social causes are imploding. Let's not make the same mistake.

There are two camps here:

1. People like Cernovich, Bill Mitchell, Stefan Molyneau, Alex Jones, Milo, PJW, and even Donald Trump himself would be in this category of people who are focused on building actionable, focused, and fairly inclusive brands around a more right-leaning style of civic nationalism.

2. The other group is a more decentralized collection of alt-right types and soft (or even sometimes pretty serious) ethnonationalists, and would include people like Richard Spencer, Baked Alaska, Jared Wyand, and a large group of anonymous twitter accounts with frog emogis in their titles, as well as an army of /pol/ posters.

I think most people know which group had a bigger impact on the election and will continue to have their brands grow steadily for the foreseeable future. It is the first group of civic-minded nationalists. Even though some of the alt right people have some views that largely overlap with ours, they fail to understand pragmatism, and in their current iteration are not going to move their ideas to a larger audience or help change any policy if they continue to think that they can try and push some of their more sensitive racial ideas (jews, black people, etc.) on the mainstream without having a longer term plan of seeding more palatable (but increasingly more "red-pill") versions of them first. They will get rejected by most normal people at face value and their brand will become marginalized from future effectiveness if they use the methods that they are currently using. It is already happening.

On the other hand, Trump ascended to the Presidency with a smartly branded civic nationalist message, and people like Cernovich, Bill Mitchell, and Paul Joseph Watson have blown up in their followings with similar themes. This brand has proven to be anti-fragile and will continue to grow (if not corrupted), showing the ability to include a larger audience of all types of people (which is needed if you want to create any meaningful political change in the USA). Instead of trying to push the JQ right now, it would be a smarter and more strategic play to consolidate our gains and rally around the more inclusive America first, civic nationalist themes that we all mostly agree on until we can start seeding the next slate of red-pill ideas to the more mainstream audience. Patience is key.

Bill Mitchell is 100% correct. It doesn't do us, Trump, or our country any good for the new-right civic nationalism brand to be overrun with people that get boners over talking about issues that divide us by race and gender at this point. Now is the time to focus on uniting themes.

Just keeping updates on occurences brief.

Mike's latest scope he just deleted mentioned that Baked was going to be sued by persons unknown for some reason.

The other news was that Mike had notified the IRS regarding Baked's unemployed status and that Mike paid him $5000 'under the table' (mike's words, not mine), i guess to see if Baked had declared it or not.

In his own words Mike said "he was not petty but vindictive" and felt slighted by Baked/Tim's divulging personal messages via screenshot release. I guess that would have precipitated the release of Baked's alleged real name, as well as notification to the IRS regarding the 5k discretely paid for services rendered, and finally it may or may not have precipitated events to whatever unnamed party mike alleged that is preparing to sue baked.

Secondly his article he released on Baked Alaska is noticeably comment disabled.

Its a weird position we're living in. I really detest the actual factual neo-nazi true believers ^TM aspects of the manosphere (catchall term for everything i'm temporarily using), but i also think freedom of speech should be unlimited.

No one individual can decide who is in an out of a broad messy public movement. (in reference to MAGA/farright/altright/newright/whateverright collective)



I was really hoping that cooler heads would prevail, and I still like them both, but this messy public spat has diminished aspects of each of them a lot in my eyes.

I'm sure they won't mind or care about my opinion but it strikes at a broader point.

Is every public movement ultimately self annihilating?

Is there always going to be larger than life figures that end up turning on each other?

I want to know because i don't have any kind of answer.

Interesting to learn that Mike paid this guy 5K a month, that is fair bit of money for online trolling even for a great cause, but also unprofitable, doubt it came from his own pocket.

I seem to recall something about Mike getting funded by a backer in the election?

Quote: (12-27-2016 06:28 PM)gonzoman925 Wrote:  

Secondly his article he released on Baked Alaska is noticeably comment disabled.

The article is comment disabled because it's posted privately and only accessible by the link I just provided. He did an 'ask me anything' scope 5 minutes after he tweeted the article.

Quote: (12-27-2016 05:51 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Mike posted his side of the story over at D&P: https://www.dangerandplay.com/anthime-gi...ska-drama/

Someone in the comments had a point -- Baked Alaska was once Milo's "agent" and was fired. I watched about 5 mins of a periscope that Alaska did where he said he was "active in recovery" and "relapsed" as an Alcoholic within the last year, he must have fucked up to lose his job working for Milo. Guy is just having a bit of a meltdown, he put all of his eggs in one basket hoping to launch a lucrative career on the Trump Train and blew it.

As someone who has attended a fair share of Alcoholic meetings I see this sort of guy all the time. Relapses and blames everyone but themselves.

"I have a new sponsor who is actually going to hold me accountable, my last sponsor was too busy raising his children and his job to be there to babysit me"

Has a mentality that because they are in "Recovery" then they are holier than thou and people need to "understand" that they have a "disease" and they can only be held accountable for their actions when they are sober.

I find that a lot of bad alkies never really grow into the sense of responsibility that a regular person develops -- they often just have the permanent mentality of an 18 year old because that's when they started drinking hard and they put everything else on the back burner and prioritized drinking. Once they sober up then they still have that teenaged attitude that the world "owes" them something.

Not sure if that fits Baked Alaska but that is my experience..., based on what Mike wrote on how they needed to keep non-controversial as they are renting a space for the party, only to have an event organizer post anti Semitic memes which could jeopardize the venue, tells me that BA probably has a lot of growing up to do. I sure did when I quit drinking, and although I have a long way to go, I am thankful that I was able to figure this out in my 20s. If you have that brain chemistry where you are just wired to love getting blackout fucked up (which I bet only 5-10% of people have so this doesn't apply to the vast majority of you guys), then quitting drinking is only the first part -- then you have to figure out how exactly to contribute to society in a meaningful way without the victim mentality.

Edit spelling mistakes

Milo was claiming BA violated an NDA and implied he was going to sue him. Maybe that's what Mike was referring to. BA says he's not under an NDA with Milo. Who the hell knows what's going on with that?

Regardless of which side you take in this fight, if any, this is a textbook example of how not to do damage control and ease someone out of your organization. Roosh hit on that in his periscope today, regarding the "saving face" issue.

What possible gain is there for Mike and Milo to try to shred Baked Alaska? Is what he's doing so offensive that he needs to be destroyed, regardless of how much damage it does to them? Mike has said some things that are pretty goddamn close to defamation, frankly, though as a lawyer I'm sure he's not crossing the line. But is that path worth going down?

We should all look at how Mr. Trump handles problems in his organizations and learn from him. Do you think he would ever allow a situation like this to blow up? No, he would handle things in such a way that the person he's kicking out feels good about the decision to leave.



P.S. - Since it came up, Baked Alaska is 29.

Note the tears.

Quote: (12-27-2016 06:32 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Quote: (12-27-2016 06:28 PM)gonzoman925 Wrote:  

Secondly his article he released on Baked Alaska is noticeably comment disabled.

The article is comment disabled because it's posted privately and only accessible by the link I just provided. He did an 'ask me anything' scope 5 minutes after he tweeted the article.

While that is true, on the scope he was only reacting to the hate comments and not the many many saner critical voices that were also in the scope.

He presented the position that it was just 1488ers annoyed with him.

No, a lot of middle of the road but strong free speech advocates were disappointed too.


Secondly on the $5000/month point someone else said, i am given to understand it was a one time $5000 fee.

We all like Mike here, i do loads too, but he was putting Baked into a pressured situation where the guy had to accept personal humiliation or break. Baked ended up breaking.

Quote: (12-27-2016 05:51 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Mike posted his side of the story over at D&P: https://www.dangerandplay.com/anthime-gi...ska-drama/

Thanks for sharing. This clears it up.

A free party would have been a disaster. See all of you there

If anything the civic nationalism approach has been more effective than any Stormfront rant, simply by virtue of outing all the neocohens like (((Ben Shapiro))) that were busily touting themselves as conservative intellectual hotshots until Trump became popular and then suddenly they went full-on cuck.

Quote: (12-27-2016 06:09 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

And he presented that "stabbed in the back by a jew" thing as something BA created when it was something he just retweeted, created by @HightechLowlife88 (88 = DOB, or Heil Hitler? Honestly don't know).

What difference do you see here? Either way it's an endorsement of the image. Plenty of people have been rightly banned from this forum for posting racist, gay and otherwise offensive memes and pics that they didn't create. It doesn't matter - posting something is an endorsement of it.

And by the way, that's exactly the wording Cernovich used "posted to his public Instagram", no mention of creating it. Not that it should matter in the least.

Just watched BA entire periscope. He comes across as a bit of whiny child who doesn't want to be part of the club now that is not "fun" anymore. I wonder if Mike offered a payoff for Baked to back out of the event gracefully.

Quote: (12-27-2016 09:38 AM)Silver_Tube Wrote:  

I like the 'don't punch right' idea but this nazi shit is sabotaging our chances at effecting any real change

I agree, and am sympathetic to MC's position. It's obvious the damage that is done in the West by leftists period. Not just leftist Jews (although they are ubiquitous). Those issues can be hashed out but the Nazi shit is lame. As a Nationalist myself, I'm also a Christian Zionist and believe there should be a Jewish state of Israel. The Alt-Right was just an amalgamation people who shared different but overlapping views and was bound to has a degree of in fighting. Those overlapping views are predominantly a part of what was once the Tea Party. Let's hope we don't go the way of the Tea Party. It's starting to feel same. But we have a champion in Trump which is something the Tea Party never had.

Uzi

Quote: (12-27-2016 07:21 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

Quote: (12-27-2016 06:09 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

And he presented that "stabbed in the back by a jew" thing as something BA created when it was something he just retweeted, created by @HightechLowlife88 (88 = DOB, or Heil Hitler? Honestly don't know).

What difference do you see here? Either way it's an endorsement of the image. Plenty of people have been rightly banned from this forum for posting racist, gay and otherwise offensive memes and pics that they didn't create. It doesn't matter - posting something is an endorsement of it.

And by the way, that's exactly the wording Cernovich used "posted to his public Instagram", no mention of creating it. Not that it should matter in the least.

What difference I see is the obvious, intrinsic difference between the two actions. I'm not sure what else to say to you if you can't see the difference between a retweet and creating an image.

No, a retweet is not the same as if you said it yourself. What about all the people who retweet shit they disagree with, to show their audience? Your argument is built on a false premise.

And I'm sorry, but that Cernovich post is all spin. In the context of a spin article, it is very clear why he presented it the way he did. Again, I don't know what else to say to you if you don't see the significance of the presentation. These subtleties are what make spin work. Spin relies on a degree of truthiness, but never the whole truth.

Why's he bringing up Baked Alaska's "real name"? It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's a technique designed to paint Baked Alaska as dishonest for using a pseudonym. Well shit, by that standard I guess we're all shitbag liars, including Roosh, right? Mike is trying to paint a picture of the guy in a way he wouldn't have to if he had an ironclad case on his side.

Cernovich has been making tweets and immediately deleting them, making periscopes and immediately deleting them, relying on logical fallacies like ad hominems and tiptoeing close to defamation. Baked Alaska... hasn't been. He's just outright making fun of Mike and he has openly acknowledged his flaws and problems. If he's been playing the memory hole game, I haven't noticed it yet. Like him or not, at least he's being open.

I've been following Mike for years. I think he's done a lot of great work, and he's led me to ideas that directly improved my life, but this behavior flat out looks like shit. It does not look like someone who's in the right and knows it, with nothing to hide.

Once again, I find myself in the bizarre position of trying to argue the case of the side I don't even agree with. But I'm not going to descend to intellectual dishonesty and lies just to prop up my side. I'm not going to endorse Mike's handling of this situation just because I think he's right about the substance of their disagreement.

Quote: (12-27-2016 07:43 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

No, a retweet is not the same as if you said it yourself. What about all the people who retweet shit they disagree with, to show their audience? Your argument is built on a false premise.

Do you maintain that Baked Alaska disagreed with the image he posted then? Or are you simply trying to muddy the waters?

Quote: (12-27-2016 07:43 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

And I'm sorry, but that Cernovich post is all spin. In the context of a spin article, it is very clear why he presented it the way he did. Again, I don't know what else to say to you if you don't see the significance of the presentation. These subtleties are what make spin work. Spin relies on a degree of truthiness, but never the whole truth.

It's a blog post written by one of two guys who were involved in a disagreement. You seem surprised that it doesn't read like a news article. Just because two sides are presented independently of one another doesn't mean that truth is impossible to discern. I watched a few minutes of BA's periscope last night and read a few lines of tweets and was amazed that he made it as long as he did in that partnership, he seems unhinged.

BA was laughing semi-hysterically then saying "I can't stop laughing", his mannerisms, the words themselves... Didn't see Cernovich's but I've seen enough of his priors that I know he wasn't behaving like that.

I also thought that the line he texted BA summed the whole ordeal up beautifully - "One day you'll grow up, sign contracts and take financial risk, then see others 'just wanna have fun'. Seen both sides of that coin and I think he really hit the nail on the head.

Quote:Quote:

I've been following Mike for years. I think he's done a lot of great work, and he's led me to ideas that directly improved my life, but this behavior flat out looks like shit. It does not look like someone who's in the right and knows it, with nothing to hide.

Once again, I find myself in the bizarre position of trying to argue the case of the side I don't even agree with. But I'm not going to descend to intellectual dishonesty and lies just to prop up my side. I'm not going to endorse Mike's handling of this situation just because I think he's right about the substance of their disagreement.

yup feel the same. Ive been reading him, applied his work, and learning from him for years now. And i'll continue to do so. Mike is a genius.

But in this particular situation, it seems like Mike went full blast, gave Tim an unrecoverable position which pushed Tim to tell all on twitter and has now set out to pick him apart using every legal means necessary.

I never thought Mike would do that to a member of the right much less a fairly prominent one [as far as outreach to non red pill people is concerned]. Yes people are going to point out Richard Spencer, and i didnt like that whole salute thing either, but i could understand MC's position being against it.

But for this, it almost seemed like a completely different person. One that was wanting to jettison some people before the big day at the ball lest some 'embarassing' elements of the right say something provocative or out of line to any person in power that was attending.

If it's Tim today, who will it be tomorrow?

It also seems like there was probably private fuckups that Baked may have done as far as deadlines and such and Mike got fed up with it.

But you are right in that there is a lot of psyops at work. Deleting periscopes, tweets. Reframing your opposition, ignoring the legitimate positive critics that want reconciliation and riling up as many people as possible so you can use the dumb tweets and memes of what they say as evidence that you were right to cast them off.

Mike is an extremely intelligent nearly 40 year old man with a family. He lives and dies by the catchphrase "when are you going to get serious with your life?"

Tim is a guy who is 10 years younger, only recently redpilled and was unemployed for a long time until this whole MAGA thing gave him something positive in his life. He had a colourful past, and still has some inner demons that he probably battles with. He also has hope and ambitions, but he's not quite worked out the rules of the game when it comes to things. He's genuine and sincere, and fucks up from time to time.

This is like and angry tyson fighting a sick little kid with leukaemia because tyson raised money for him. Its kinda brutal and needless you know?

Quote: (12-27-2016 08:07 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

Quote: (12-27-2016 07:43 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

No, a retweet is not the same as if you said it yourself. What about all the people who retweet shit they disagree with, to show their audience? Your argument is built on a false premise.

Do you maintain that Baked Alaska disagreed with the image he posted then? Or are you simply trying to muddy the waters?

No, I was explaining why your logical statement that "It doesn't matter - posting something is an endorsement of it." is incorrect. Sorry to get pedantic, but I don't need to disassemble the rest of your argument if the premise it's based on is wrong.

Asking whether BA agreed with it or not is a simple deflection of my point that Mike presented it in a misleading matter as part of his general spin. It doesn't matter if he agreed with it or not, when the point is that Mike presented in a specific way to make it look like BA made the thing himself. Mike could've just as easily have posted an image of the retweet including the original creator, if he was interested in showing the whole story. He didn't.

Quote:Quote:

Quote: (12-27-2016 07:43 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

And I'm sorry, but that Cernovich post is all spin. In the context of a spin article, it is very clear why he presented it the way he did. Again, I don't know what else to say to you if you don't see the significance of the presentation. These subtleties are what make spin work. Spin relies on a degree of truthiness, but never the whole truth.

It's a blog post written by one of two guys who were involved in a disagreement. You seem surprised that it doesn't read like a news article. Just because two sides are presented independently of one another doesn't mean that truth is impossible to discern. I watched a few minutes of BA's periscope last night and read a few lines of tweets and was amazed that he made it as long as he did in that partnership, he seems unhinged.

BA was laughing semi-hysterically then saying "I can't stop laughing", his mannerisms, the words themselves... Didn't see Cernovich's but I've seen enough of his priors that I know he wasn't behaving like that.

I also thought that the line he texted BA summed the whole ordeal up beautifully - "One day you'll grow up, sign contracts and take financial risk, then see others 'just wanna have fun'. Seen both sides of that coin and I think he really hit the nail on the head.

I seem surprised? No, I seem like someone pointing out that it's spun, and should not be taken as a factual account. The degree of spin is heavy. If you don't see why that matters, for the third time, I don't know what to tell you. If you're clearly right, you don't need to present a spun case like you're trying to get your client off in criminal court.

BA is upset over this. Wow, that's a strong argument against him. Of course he's upset. Mike is saying a lot of nasty shit about him and tearing him down. Did you expect him to just take that in stride?

Today, Baked Alaska is going off the rails, by the way. He's obviously seriously wounded by Mike's behavior and his lashing out in ways I don't like because it undermines stuff I believe in and isn't going to help us. And that's why this is a textbook example of how not to handle a situation like this. Besides the potential for damaging movements I care about, now Mike also just made an enemy with a significant following and little to lose.

Mike isn't perfect. There's no need to rationalize everything he's doing. That doesn't help anyone.

Does Roosh really not have a brand? He does and that's as it should be. A brand helps people know what to expect and what value they can hope to find.

During the incidents recounted in Free Speech Isn't Free (Canada, summer 2015), there was a tightening of speech on the forum, emergency mode, not just for safety but also to avoid giving ammunition to enemies.

That was a good move then and I don't see how it was fundamentally different that what Cernovich and others with a 'new right' brand are doing now, wanting to distance themselves from elements dangerous to their brand's health.

Quote: (08-26-2015 10:17 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote: (08-26-2015 10:07 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

And lets not forget Elliot Rogers. Guy was on the forum and possibly browsed here too I bet.

This is a good example of what not to do. Do not imagine links that murderers have to this forum, especially when it's speculation like you just did. Elliot Rodgers didn't have an account here and there was no evidence he read the forum.

If you made such a comment during an emergency I describe, you would be banned immediately.

Quote: (08-26-2015 02:41 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

This is a smart policy. Like it or not, what's posted on the forum ends up reflecting personally on Roosh and on this "movement" in general. There's no sense in giving the enemy ammunition that can be used to dilute and distract from the message.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I've noticed a move away from specific incendiary words, name-calling, while simultaneously sharpening and intensifying and honing the message. It's a move forward. There's nothing conciliatory about that.

Quote: (08-26-2015 03:27 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I've noticed a move away from specific incendiary words, name-calling, while simultaneously sharpening and intensifying and honing the message. It's a move forward. There's nothing conciliatory about that.

If anything that has made the forum more effective in constructing devastating arguments against the enemy. A lot of what starts here spreads outwards onto other platforms.

Quote: (12-27-2016 08:31 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Quote: (12-27-2016 08:07 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

Quote: (12-27-2016 07:43 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

No, a retweet is not the same as if you said it yourself. What about all the people who retweet shit they disagree with, to show their audience? Your argument is built on a false premise.

Do you maintain that Baked Alaska disagreed with the image he posted then? Or are you simply trying to muddy the waters?

No, I was explaining why your logical statement that "It doesn't matter - posting something is an endorsement of it." is incorrect. Sorry to get pedantic, but I don't need to disassemble the rest of your argument if the premise it's based on is wrong.

Unless a post is accompanied by a statement or image of disavowal, to use the buzz word (for example, multiple laughing emojis) posting something is taken to be an endorsement. Particularly when the post falls exactly in line with the poster's repeatedly stated views, and particularly when those views are ones which the poster is currently being called out on. I took this to be self-evident in my original statement.

Quote: (12-27-2016 08:31 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Asking whether BA agreed with it or not is a simple deflection of my point that Mike presented it in a misleading matter as part of his general spin. It doesn't matter if he agreed with it or not, when the point is that Mike presented in a specific way to make it look like BA made the thing himself. Mike could've just as easily have posted an image of the retweet including the original creator, if he was interested in showing the whole story. He didn't.

Here is the exact quote from Cernovich's post - "Tim proves my instincts right by posting a meme of me being being a back-stabbing Jew. Tim posted this to his public Instagram account...Here is the “inspiration” for the above meme."

I read this and didn't assume for a second that he created the meme. But then again, it was perfectly in line with his stated views, was a clear endorsement of the meme, and so the creator was irrelevant. I agree Mike isn't perfect, and don't even follow him regularly, but in this instance he is clearly in the right in my mind. I appreciate him taking the higher, less popular road, and don't like seeing him take flack for it.

Quote: (12-27-2016 07:43 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Cernovich has been making tweets and immediately deleting them, making periscopes and immediately deleting them, relying on logical fallacies like ad hominems and tiptoeing close to defamation. Baked Alaska... hasn't been. He's just outright making fun of Mike and he has openly acknowledged his flaws and problems. If he's been playing the memory hole game, I haven't noticed it yet. Like him or not, at least he's being open.

It is because in this situation, Mike is the leader trying to organize an event and also manage his overall brand and Baked Alaska is a loose cannon employee that is disrupting what Mike is trying to build by not following his rules. BA doesn't have anything to lose because he was already kicked out of the club for being stupid. That is why he is acting with more recklessness. #MAGA3X was started by Mike and BA was always a pointman/employee. Not the creator. I remember this when is was actually developing a couple months ago, and Mike is telling the truth on that. All of the verifiable stuff in Mike's post is true and fits the data we have available. As far as Mike deleting stuff, he simply hasn't been saving his Periscopes. He has done this before when it isn't something he wants to have tied to his brand long term, but still wants the information to get out to the people that are more interested.

By the way, if in this situation the ad hominem attacks are true, then it is not a "logical fallacy," or even really "argument" at all. It simply is the case that BA was working for Mike (and by extension Mike's brand) and fucked it up by going too far into the 1488 stuff and refusing to drop it. If BA isn't personally conducting himself how Mike wants him to, then Mike has a right to cut ties with him, plain and simple. This is the dispute going on with cutting BA out of Deploraball.

By the way, I'm not sure if BA is using alcohol or drugs or not, but his comments about just wanting to have "fun" with something, while in reality it requires more serious organization and effort, reek to me of the someone who has substance abuse issues. His specific phrasing reminds me of several drug addicts in particular that I had the (un)pleasure of having to live with for extended periods of time. Maybe it is nothing, but it definitely sets my alarm bells off.