>>11372550

seriously baker?

the "filthy" part of "filthy Jewish Talmud" is not a fact, it's your opinion

"the JQ" is not a fact, it's your opinion

your views on "talmudic vs. rabbinical jews" are not a fact, they are your opinion

your role as a baker is to select factual notables

this has nothing to do with anything Q told us in the drops

TO BO, BVs, /comms/

'''That kind of material does not belong in the breads.

These "muh joos" slides are poison pills that makes us look bad.

That baker's opinions on Jews have nothing to do with what we are trying to do here.

Please remind the baker of what he is supposed to do.'''

>>11372674

let's agree to disagree

you have discretion over the selection of notables, even though you should strive for them to be relevant, but you should leave the "muh joos" parts out of the bread

you're only giving fodder to the cabal types that want to typecast us as rabid antisemites

notables about anything related to Israel, specific Jewish organizations, specific Jewish individuals are absolutely fine, as long as they are factual

just leave the "muh joos" part out

I have no complaints about the rest of your bakes otherwise, you're doing a very good job at that

o7