Anonymous ID: 2d5458 Feb. 11, 2019, 6:20 p.m. No.5131526   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1594 >>1614 >>1662

>>5131180, >>5131244

> am not participating in this place beyond posting in general.

You do you man, but this seems like pussy talk to me

>BV in meta pulling up peoples HASH HISTORIES (seems dangerous) to discourage them from discussing JEWS

I'm the baker you're saying was discouraged from discussing Jews. This assessment is untrue. BV was giving baker needed info to understand how JIDF/MOS was playing both sides of the issue. Never have I been discouraged to discuss Jews, or discouraged from putting info in notables that is critical of Jews or Israel. In fact, I was the baker that posted the rebuttal in notables stating that the holohoax stuff in the SOTU might have been optics on the 9th just before Q started posting on optics.

You'll also see in Meta that the documentary showing the other side to the cabal's narrative on Hitler took a lot of heat from shills, but BV supported baker's choice to include it.

Also, BO/BV post hash histories all the time if they suspect spam behavior in order to inform bakers & anons so they can make their own decisions.

 

Protip: If you want to try dividing a group of srupulously fact-finding, honest, & loyal autists, you might, ya know, wanna… TRY HARDER

Anonymous ID: 2d5458 Feb. 11, 2019, 6:27 p.m. No.5131721   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1757

>>5131614

>so you explain the fucking double standard????

Not all bakers have the same outlook. Ideally we're unbiased, but we're all dealing with different levels of redpilling on many different subjects.

>yet there in the link from META you can see israel first BV shaming a baker for not including notable callouts that DIDNT INVOLVE JEWS

Again, I am that baker, and you're misrepresenting things to create division. We can discuss the JQ here, and we're blessed in that. Doesn't mean we have to do it at all times. We need to have a balanced presentation or we don't accommodate all anons at all levels of their journey.