Just trying to get a consensus here.

Since the discussion the past breads.

So as long as ANYONE is speaking about Q and what they say is not directly negative we are happy to have them represent our movement?

No matter their affiliations?

So a Nambla member, proudly showing off him membership is fine too?

Just asking because when i made this point last but coupled it with freemasonry I got freemason-shilled hard. But everyone just ignored that i classified him as a MAP before saying he was freemason.

>>2480940

So why are we happy to have a Satanist tranny represent our movement?

He might be legit, he might just be misinformed.

He might really truly be a Q supporter.

But does that make it a good representation then?

It's everything we are standing against.

>>2481010

Right now the bakers represent the movement whether we like it or not.

Notables might not be endorsements. but where do we draw the line?

Bakers chose to not only feature, lets say her for the SJWs out there , but to classify it as "good"

>>2481058

You are a good little sheep

>>2481084

They effectively decide what notables to put in bread, only with the oversight of BO.

By deciding that they decide what newfags first read when they get here.

But that is not representing our movement… ok…

>>2481100

Double dubs and you still fail. Nice diversion tactic

You are wrong however.

>>2481136

THAT WE HAVE HAD A FUCKING BLATANT SATANIST TRANNY REPRESENT OUR MOVEMENT ALL FUCKING DAY!

Fuck…

Hypocrisy…

Fucking hypocrisy…

Fuck you.

I'm out for today.

>>2481190

Yes. and while we are at it why don't we also start feeling sympathy for adults who diddle kids. As long as they say the truth.

Go back to you safespace snowflake.