The fraud is the cover, racism is the real angle.

There was similar fraud uncovered in New York state I believe earlier this year, which was significantly larger in scope, and that story hasn’t even cracked the news. Pointing out the racism here, while correct, isn’t at the core of the issue IMO.

To actual Stormfront-posting capital W capital N White Nationalists, years ago they made the “issue” of Somali immigration into Minnesota and other places across the northern US stretching from the Cascades to the Great Lakes one of the causes they got the most worked up over. I have yet to see a White Nationalist envision a takeover of the entire USA. What they do advocate for, amongst themselves, is creating a white ethnostate in the Pacific Northwest, possibly reaching eastward across Minnesota and Wisconsin. The reason for this is, take a look at a map of counties in the US with >95% white concentration. If you do you will notice just how white that part of the country is (and how conservative it is, if you overlap it with a voting map). They see that area as “theirs” and the home of a future white homeland.

White Nationalists perceive the immigration of Somalis into Minnesota as the tip of the spear of their great replacement theory. They think Soros et al specifically target the whitest areas of the US and mark them for “replacement”. While this is all obviously ridiculous and gross, these people see it in terms of a life-or-death struggle.

Just like other issues that were only in the realm of furthest edges of the right have been mainstreamed into the GOP and conservative media ecosystem before, this topic and broken containment. It’s a deeply racist idea that no doubt has a ardent champion in Stephen Miller (who I am 100% is a White Nationalist based on pretty much every word out of his weasel mouth) and likely others in conservative leadership. That’s the real story behind this.

I genuinely hate the aesthetics of it. I can’t stand Christmas music or Christmas movies. The “Christmas episodes” TV shows run are so incredibly corny. I find the decorations to be tacky and ugly. I feel like I’m suffocated by so much cheap plastic crap that will be thrown away after the holidays.

I suppose that all wouldn’t be so bad if the “Christmas season” didn’t stretch out for so long. It’s now well underway before Thanksgiving, and I’m being conservative with that. That means at least 10% of the year - so 10% of my life, too - is spent under the Christmas regime.

But on a deeper level, I think it points to a real sickness in society. Capitalism has so thoroughly destroyed our real social connections to each other. It breaks those human bonds and creates atomized individuals who are only supposed to care about themselves. But that’s not who we are as a species - we are social creatures who have a couple hundred thousand years of cooperation with each other in order to survive.

On some level, capital “knows” ripping us away from our social being is not only unnatural, but atomizing us so thoroughly harms social reproduction. Christmas has become a way of resolving this problem. BUT, it’s capitalism… so the solution can’t be something like “give workers the month of December off so people can spend real quality time with each other”.

So capitalism has created this artificial holiday structure where “family”, “giving back”, and “what really matters” is centered, but it’s all done in the most superficial way possible. It’s all kabuki. Capital creates an imitation of social connection and still manages to make it about accumulating more capital. Spend money on presents. Don’t like the commercialism around presents? That’s ok, spend money on airfare or gas to see your family. Use up your meager PTO at the end of the year when it’s slow and costs your boss less. But I think getting workers to spend money is still just the secondary objective of Christmas. It’s much more about getting people to forget how deeply separated we are from each other. To pretend for at least 10% of the year that everything is normal, capitalism is normal and being disconnected from each other is normal so long as you watch a couple movies once a year that are supposed to remind you that “what really matters is family” - the feeling though, not the reality.

That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

Communism killed 100 million billion trillion people.

Also that ethnostates are bad.

After many years of trying and failing, I finally convinced my friends to try a TTRPG (Dungeons & Dragons). This is my first time ever playing a TTRPG as it is for most of my friends. We are having an absolute blast. The general consensus is that we should have started doing this years ago (which I always pipe in with a “yeah, that’s why I first brought it up in like 2021”)

I have an N64 and a Sony PVM, so I play a lot of games on that. But there’s two I play much more regularly than all the others: Mario Golf and Mario Tennis. They both hold up incredibly well.

Worth noting that usually, the public pays for the stadium in whole or in a significant part, but the sports team owners are the ones who pocket the proceeds from the naming rights.

Yes, I think my advice applies more to an interview than something you would put down on paper on a questionnaire.

I am going to go against the grain of conventional advice and say you should just outline it like you did here. I have been in the position of hiring people before. I much prefer to know the real reason why someone left a company. Granted, if someone says “my boss was an asshole”, I would probably just see that as likely making excuses. But, if someone says “I left because I was subjected to verbal and emotional harassment by my boss, and if you want me to provide specific examples I can do so”, that’s actually information I would prefer to know. I think your situation falls into that later example for sure.

The idea that you should never speak ill of a former employer regardless of the circumstances IMO is bad advice.

deleted by creator

I share most of the opinions expressed about it already expressed in this thread, so I’ll add one: whenever I’m exposed to libertarian media (podcasts, articles, etc), I’m really struck by just how surface-level the analysis is. It’s like, for anything going on in the world, they simply try to tie it back to “biG gOvErNmENt” and shoehorn everything into that. They won’t even show their work of how they get from A to B. I get that once you start applying dialectical materialism to your analysis of the world around you, other analyses can seem vulgar. But tbh even your typical liberal worldview seems more thought out than libertarians.