Many Republican pundits and talking heads have long fought courageously in the war on Christmas, or at least reported on it, but what is it? How does it negatively affect anyone? To answer these questions we first have to look at the origins of this idea.

Bill O'Reilly, a reporter who FOX news fired for sexual assault allegations, originated the talking point in the early 2000s, saying liberals were trying to secularize Christmas in schools, stores, and more. Pundits like O'Reilly argue that this is an example of persecution against Christians. This ignores that many Christians have been arguing for Christmas to be less prominent in stores because it commercialized the holiday.  It also omits the fact that public schools, which the government runs, are covered by the separation of church and state. 

The argument goes that liberals are replacing the phrase Merry Christmas with a supposedly more secular one: Happy Holidays, which is somehow harmful. Proponents of this belief are never clear about why this is bad, other than a general implication that conservative Christians are being persecuted. 

They always place the blame at the feet of liberals and people on the left of the political spectrum. When spouting this rhetoric the pundit makes it clear that the people to blame are not innocently trying to be more inclusive of cultures other than their own, but deliberately attempting to crush Christianity. 

While many say that liberals are secularizing Christmas, the word holiday is not at all more secular, having roots in the old English term hāligdæg, meaning holy day. Christians have used this phrase for years because only having one way to refer to Christmas, which is used repeatedly, becomes rather dull. 

When you hear your news anchors talk about how evil one party is you begin to disengage from all their ideas, assuming that everything they say must be wrong because they are saying it. This makes it harder for individual conservative people to listen to and engage with liberals in their community, increasing partisanship and making it nearly impossible for their ideas to evolve.

The war on Christmas is commonly discussed in conjunction with other conspiracy theories including Q-anon, and although it is not inherently tied to those more extreme beliefs, believing it is often the first step to radicalization. The war on Christmas is not a real thing. To say that it is makes the actual issues harder to discuss.

Trickle-down economics was an economic ideology introduced to America by former president Ronald Reagan. It was a system that attempted to give jobs and money to the poor by giving money to the rich so the rich could create jobs. This system straight up doesn’t work and does more harm than good, besides, why doesn’t this fund local businesses so that more jobs can be created for people of more skill sets? There’s a lot of weak points in this system that can be spotted by just looking at the idea in and of itself.

Now it might be asked why the system doesn’t work, as America today still functions with Ronald Reagan’s economy. But that’s barely an excuse because the wealth gap has increased rather than decreased because the system is designed to benefit the rich. It was designed believing that the rich would make jobs that pay employees livable wages, but that’s simply not the case. This is proven simply by observing the pay most entry-level jobs get, and how many people are living check to check. Inflation makes this even worse as the poor’s money becomes worth less and less, the rich thrive because their riches come from their asset’s worth in cash, which increases with inflation, while the wages don’t.

Speaking of inflation, the problem is slowly becoming apparent, making billionaires worth even more, and since their wealth is in assets, they don’t need to give out their wealth. In fact, it incentivises rich people to hoard their wealth due to the tax cuts they get because of the “need” to keep their money to keep paying people. But who’s stopping them from barely paying employees while their wealth grows? Trick question, nothing is. So while lower classes struggle to even live, the upper class gets to thrive.

But while the rich thrive, the lower and even middle class don’t get anything from the system, only the upper class’ “generosity.”. And relying on rich people’s morals is only so reliable until the upper class simply stops helping the lower classes, and that's where everything falls apart. This system is logically unreliable and volatile for everybody except the upper class, who have no risk but all the rewards.

What can be done to fight back? We can always support smaller, more local businesses, we could grow our own food, and we could make our own things, because if the corporations can do it, we can too. Reagan’s economic ideology may have hurt America’s economy, but it doesn’t mean it's irreparable. This is all important as this botched economy has caused homelessness and poverty more than ever.

As we, the US, have prospered and advanced throughout the relatively short time we’ve been a nation, we’ve prided ourselves on being a fair and people-based democracy. Yet, how we operate this “so-called” democracy just becomes the thing we've strived to avoid: a republic.

Our forefathers developed this country with heavy influence from Greco-Roman politics, but people tend to forget that while they had a vision for unity, their idea of being unified was very primitive compared to what we see it as now. The early days of the US had a national governing body, but it could not operate without each state's consent to decisions. But each state still voted with representative democracy. One could say it was multiple republics inside of a republic.

Further along in our history though, the Constitution was written. This deterred states rights so that we would be an actual democracy. But this honestly did not change anything because with the lead-up to the Constitution, we had created the House. The House, while giving the people some voice, only strengthens our borderline republic. Yes we may vote for representatives, but there is no legal or moral obligation for the representatives to listen to us. The tax and treasury system, petition movements, etc. Our government is in no position of responsibility to where they have to listen to the people. Same with the House. One could say, with the House being several governing people making decisions on the people's behalf, the US is a hybrid mishmash of a Republic-Oligarchy. 

It can even be seen now. Greece had this issue. Thebes, while having their own “democracy”, still ended up voting along with other city-states on Greek issues, regardless of public opinion. Greece had a countrywide draft for the Corinthian War, but many people voted against it. This of course did not matter because the vast majority did not vote against it, even though the people voting were not young men who had to go die in battle.

It can be observed clearly that though the US government boasts a democracy, we operate like a republic. As shown above, democracy itself does not even function, since more times than not, the people voting on dire issues won't be affected by the dire issues regardless. On the other hand, we are politically influenced by capitalism so much that it's an odd mixture of aristocracy, republicanism, and the occasional oligarchal change. Though frowned upon and overall deterred by Post-Cold War propaganda, socialist-like policies have almost never failed the US. Many swear by its ineffective nature, but are supportive of things like Obama Care, veteran assistance and education reform. If we want to see change, our current ways will not suffice to achieve advancement.

For as long as Super Smash Brothers has had a competitive scene, fans have been eager to legitimize it as an esport. However, as players and tournament organizers work to make this dream come true, operations have been quick to get shut down — in thanks to both education administrators, as well as Nintendo itself. (For more information, see our news article titled “Competitive Smash community continues to face pressure at local and global levels.”)

Luckily for those who want to see the scene gain legitimacy, an alternative platform-fighter has been creeping into popularity — one crafted by veterans of the genre — a game without as many iconic faces, which has won the hearts of thousands from base mechanics alone. Allow us to introduce you to a game that rose from humble beginnings to become the most well-refined experience in its subgenre — one we should legitimize and even integrate as an extracurricular esport: Rivals of Aether.

Rivals of Aether is a 2017 indie platform-fighting game developed by Aether Studios — a small group of game designers founded and led by Dan Fornace. Fornace was inspired by the likes of Super Smash Brothers Melee, and the fast-paced action provided as a result of its incredible level of depth. This design-philosophy was adapted and carried over into Rivals of Aether, but with an added focus on making entry-level techniques more beginner-friendly, whilst maintaining a high skill ceiling.

“Rivals came about because I really love Melee, but I was never good at it. It was really hard,” says Fornace. “Rivals is my attempt to make an easier version of Melee… but some stuff was based on my experiences playing competitive Smash.”

Platform-fighting games are unique from traditional fighters. Unlike the titles known for defining and popularizing the genre — such as Karate Champ, Mortal Kombat, and Street Fighter II — platform-fighters put a higher emphasis on fast, freeform movement and oftenly improvised combos. The win-condition of a platform-fighter is also typically different. Instead of draining an opponent’s health-bar, players will raise a percent-meter on the other character — which will make it easier to perform ring-outs on their opponent, the higher the percentage is. These differences define the platform-fighter as a more fast-paced, free-flowing, creative, and wholly unique experience not seen in traditional fighters or other genres of competitive games — an experience which is sorely lacking presence in the realm of prestigious esports, for now.

Where Rivals of Aether diverges most from Smash is in its competitive scene. For example: unlike the case in every Smash game — every arena in Rivals is tournament-legal, and every character is considered to be competitively viable (despite the cast being so mechanically diverse). This is because, while the Super Smash Brothers franchise was made to be a series of party games first and foremost, Rivals of Aether was built to be as competition-friendly as possible — and where Nintendo has gone out of their way to hinder or shut down activity within the competitive Smash community, Aether Studios actively promotes, funds, enriches, and collaborates with its competitive scene — selling merchandise to fund tournaments and increase prize pools, and even hiring big-name players (such as SBS, the official Rivals of Aether esports manager). This unique environment ensures that establishing a Rivals league here at Brown would have better odds at surviving long-term than your average grassroots Smash league.

With a positive review rate of 95% on Steam, Rivals of Aether is frequently regarded as the best platform-fighting game ever made. It’s a title which fosters a wealth of depth in its gameplay whilst having a low enough skill floor to maintain approachability. It’s a fast, creative, remarkable experience that could very well satisfy the esports industry’s craving for a high-prestige platform-fighting game scene if only it had more eyes on it — and between coaching, doubles matches, and crew battles, it could help build teamwork skills for participating youth in ways similar to most physical sports. The scene is among the healthiest of its kind despite its relatively small size, and many people who experience the game fall in love with it. It’s a love letter to the genre — and as a love letter to it, it would be a marvelous idea to start a league for it here at Brown. We could start by hosting some local tournaments, but it could quickly grow into something greater.