#the rise of the far right isn't only happening in america

[normalenjoyer-png]

hey guys! reminder than if you can vote you absolutely fuckign should! i swear to god if i catch any of you not voting when you have the capabilities im going to lose it!

[coraniaid]

Not an original thought on my part but I really do still hate the end of Doppelgangland (by which I mean, specifically, the Scooby Gang's decision to send vampire!Willow back to her own dimension where both she and they believe she will be free to kill and torture people as much as she likes again). The more you think about it the more completely it undermines anything else the show is trying to say this season if not the whole premise of the show itself. I honestly think it's one of the worst writing decisions the show ever made.

I often see people comparing the scene in Bad Girls where Faith doesn't listen to Buffy and kills Allan Finch with the scene in this episode where Buffy does listen to Willow and doesn't kill her vampire alter ego. And I think this parallel probably is fully intentional, only ... what is it trying to say? To paraphrase Kendra: she's a vampire, she should die. That has consistently been the rule the show iived by up to this point (at least for soulless vampires). Xander didn't have a choice to spare vampire!Jesse, even though Jesse was his friend. Buffy promised to -- and did -- kill vampire!Ford, even though Ford was her friend and was going to die if he wasn't turned. Buffy patrols cemetaries every night killing vampires as they rise from their graves, before they've killed anyone, just because they will otherwise go on to hurt people. Buffy sent Angel to hell even though she was in love with him. But suddenly it's wrong to kill a vampire that looks like -- but isn't -- one of Buffy's friends? Even one that we know has killed and tortured people? Even one that was actively trying to do that at the time Buffy was about to stake her? How does this square with anything else in the show's history?

The episode doesn't suggest vampire!Willow's reformed in any way. It doesn't give her a soul or a chip in her head or even have her promise really hard not to hurt anyone else. On the contrary, she repeatedly tells everyone who will listen how much she enjoys hurting people and how she's going to keep doing it because it's fun. The Scooby Gang have to intervene to stop her carrying out a massacre at the Bronze in their world, in which vampire!Willow kills at least one person. And then they let her go anyway!

It's like if Season 2 had 'solved' the Angelus problem by just persuading Angelus to go and kill people in a different town than Sunnydale, one Buffy wouldn't ever visit. Or if Season 4's Doomed had ended with the gang cheerfully working toegether to have the Iniiative chip removed from Spike because he seemed sad about not being able to kill people anymore, and then had them gather at the airport to wave him off and wish him luck eating people in South America. It makes no sense at all.

And yes, we see that vampire!Willow is killed instantly on returning to her original timeline, so what the Scoobies did didn't actually get anyone human hurt. But, crucially, they didn't know that would happen when they made the decision and in fact they never learn it did. It simply cannot factor into the morality of their actions. As far as any of them ever know they let a monster free to kill and inflict misery on hundreds of people, because ... what? She looked like Willow, so she deserved "a chance"? (To do what, Willow? Increase her bodycount?) Because it's "the way it should be"? (In the dimension that ... according to the rules of the show, shouldn't even exist and was only created by an evil demon?) And then we go right back to the main plot of the season, where ... oh, yes, Faith's refusual to accept personal responsibility for the results of her actions is a sign that she has crossed a serious moral boundary. Right. No obvious hypocrisy on our heroes' part there then.

Genuinely, how does any of this make any sense at all?

[theyknowthatweknow]

I've seen some people say that the rise of the far right in many countries is to do with trump, when in actual fact it's to do with the brexit vote in the U.K. The man behind it Nigel farage has close ties with trump who endorsed him. Trump himself had a Scottish mother and a father of European ancestry - when he talked about making America great again, it was clearly stemming from how America is a country built on white supremacy from Britain and other European countries many years ago.

Britain tried and somewhat successfully to portray itself as a reformed democratic country inclusive for all, just like America did, despite the fact both of them occupy other countries illegally. When 9/11 happened though, they illegally invaded and committed genocides in the middle east under the false guise of 'democracy' which gave rise to far right sentiments being more popular and a high refugee crisis. Particularly in Britain which has led to the conservatives who are only becoming more far right come into power and thus brexit happening. And the success of that and the collaboration of the people behind it with trump to let him come into power.

In all honesty, the far right have always been in Europe and never gone away, but they were treated as a minority not to worry about and not representative of the countries, rather than dealing with those problems. Thus the far right became smarter in how they talked because of this and more emboldened and that's why now we see the likes of merloni and now wilders in power and also the likes of modi and bolsonaro in power in other parts of the world.

The far right now becoming the dominant parties isn't surprising but just something waiting to happen from countries refusing to acknowledge the atrocities of their past so they can portray themselves as the beacons of 'democracy' and 'civilised' to the rest of the world

[choiceofgames]

The Hero Project: Redemption Season

"The Hero Project: Redemption Season." America's #1 reality show for heroes is back for another season! Harness your superpowers to steal the spotlight, win votes, and save your sister!

https://www.choiceofgames.com/hero-project-redemption-season/

In a contest where everyone has superpowers, your opponents can cause earthquakes and explosions, but you're an average Ani-Powered who wakes up with different animal attributes every day. Will your hawk eyes or canine claws take you far enough in the competition to satisfy the only person who can help your sister? And what happens if winning isn't enough?

As you advance, the decisions you make will transform viewers' ideas of what it means to be a hero. Will you fight for your own goals, or make sacrifices for the good of society? Strive for what you believe is right by following the rules, or take down the whole system with more radical methods? Would you take wealth and fame over changing the world?

Choose wisely. It's Redemption Season.

"The Hero Project: Redemption Season" is the first installment in a new series of interactive novels by Zachary Sergi set in the "Heroes Rise" universe. Your choices control the story. It's entirely text-based--129,000 words, without graphics or sound effects--and fueled by the vast, unstoppable power of your imagination.

[criticallyacclaimedstranger]

If I Kiss You Where It's Sore [a Jay & Frankie fic]

Read on Ao3

Fandom: Triple Frontier

Ship: Frankie Morales x Jay ‘Lady’ Ray (OFC) **Series masterlist**

Warnings: Family life, mention of what happened in SA, mention of drug abuse/mental health problems.

Words: 1,530

Summary: Post South America, Frankie sometimes has bad days, but Jay knows how to handle it.

A/N: Title is from Better, a song by Regina Spektor.

Taglist: @amneris21 @apascalrascal @harriedandharassed @kikis-writing-world @lovesbiggerthanpride @miraclesabound @mswarriorbabe80 @pazizz @paulalikestuff @rambling-in-purple @trinkets01

Frankie does not complain. That's one of his things. He'll not only suffer in silence but also do his best to make sure Jay is well and comfortable when he himself isn't.

It's just like that tonight. Jay notices it as soon as she comes home from work. Frankie had already picked up Alma from daycare, dinner is on the table, Bianca is screaming on his arm, and Alma breaks loose from him only to attack Jay with complaints of her own. Jay immediately sees that Frankie is exhausted and struggling, so she takes the crying baby from him, and kisses his cheek.

"Go sit down," she tells him gently, but Frankie only shakes his head and turns to Alma, who is complaining loudly about Jay not listening.

"Almalita, let mommy sit down, she just got home."

"Bianca can't scream!" Alma hollers, and Jay kneels in front her eldest daughter, Bianca crying against her shoulder.

"Alma, please don't yell," she asks patiently. "Bianca is teething, that's why she's unhappy. She'll calm down soon, but it upsets her that you're yelling."

"She's yelling!"

"I know, honey, but that's because she's in pain, and she's too little to tell us with words."

"When will she start talking?" Alma complains. Jay rocks the baby against her shoulder and smiles comfortingly.

"She talks all the time, doesn't she? She babbles and laughs when she sees you. She's always happy to see you, she just can't say it in words yet."

Alma is looking suspicious but when Bianca takes a break to inhale deeply, preparing for another bout of crying, she startles, as if she just thought of something.

"I know where her keys are!"

"Do you?" Frankie asks, visibly relieved as he finishes laying the table. "Help us out and go get them."

Alma runs out of the kitchen on search of the ring with three teether toys in the shape of keys. Jay rises to her feet and pats the crying baby's back.

"There, there..."

She's tired after her day at work, but Frankie looks downright slaughtered. Still, he finds the energy to smile at her as she brushes up against him.

"You okay?" she asks quietly just as Bianca starts to wail again. Frankie makes a sympathetic grimace at the baby as he takes the lid off the salad bowl.

"Sure," he nods, sounding perfectly fine, just as Alma returns to the kitchen, the keys in her hand.

"Here! Bianca is quiet now!"

"Thank you so much, good job, Alma."

A little later, Bianca is strapped in the carrier against Jay's chest, and drooling all over the keys while still whining low. Frankie is helping Alma to cut up the vegetables on her plate while the girl starts to tell her parents about her escapades on the jungle gym at daycare - for the third time.

"I climbed high, all the way to the top, and I didn't fall," she excitedly waves her plastic spoon, "and I wasn't afraid!"

"Put your spoon down when you're not using it, mijita," Frankie admonishes her as Jay nods encouragingly.

"How did you get down?"

"Miss Jennie helped me. She said I'd fall." Alma spoons up a piece of broccoli and puts it in her mouth. Chewing thoughtfully, she looks at Jay.

"I wasn't gonna fall, mommy."

"You haven't fallen so far."

"Miss Jennie is always afraid."

"But you are not, are you, Alma?" Frankie asks, spooning up peas for her. Alma shakes her head vigorously.

"Alma is never afraid," she agrees.

"It's okay to be afraid though, you know that, right?" Jay points out as she cuts into her meatballs. "Everyone is afraid sometimes."

"Not me," the girl insists, and Jay chuckles. If it's in the girl's nature to just throw herself headfirst into any physical activity, or if it's just her age and perceived invincibility, Jay has no idea. It is, however, hard to encourage it while also trying to carefully remind the four-year-old that accidents can happen. And right now, Jay is wondering if she should have a talk with Miss Jennie, who is of a surprisingly nervous disposition for a daycare teacher, about unnecessarily angsting about Alma's climbing. She quickly forgets about it, though, when Bianca's whining rises to a cry, and Alma starts to protest about the noise again.

Somehow, the evening passes somewhat calmly. Bianca has a slight temperature and is given Tylenol, after which she passes out, and once Alma understands that her baby sister really is sick her attitude adjusts, and she helps out by dabbing the baby's forehead with a cool, wet towel. When both kids are tucked in and asleep, Jay finds Frankie in the living-room, plopped down on the couch, leaning his head back and rubbing his forehead. She sees from how he carries himself that his shoulders are tense and knows that he's had a rough day. It's not as much taking care of his children - Frankie loves being a stay-at-home dad - but he's clearly having a bad mental health day today. He's staying clean and she loves him even more for that, for his commitment, but he so easily forgets about himself in his endeavor to prove to his family that he deserves them. The South American excursion that he and the guys undertook only a couple of weeks ago, and the casualties suffered during it, didn’t make things easier.

"Come to bed," she tells him quietly. Frankie hums but doesn't open his eyes.

"I'm sorry, baby, I'm not up for it tonight."

"Not that," she shakes her head as she comes up to the couch and finds his hand on his thigh. "Your shoulders are jammed. I'll loosen them up for you."

He opens his eyes then, those beautiful, warm brown eyes that he shares with their daughters, and for a moment Jay thinks they look a little shiny. He nods slowly and lets Jay pull him up and lead him to the bedroom. Bianca's crib is in the same room, so Jay navigates him quietly to the edge of the bed and sits him down. Fetching a towel and the massage oil from the bathroom, she returns to take his t-shirt off, then his jeans. Frankie then climbs into bed and makes himself comfortable on his stomach, and Jay sets to work.

When she was in school and learning massage techniques, Frankie would often complain about her rough touch, but she has had a few years of practice now. Carefully adjusting the intensity according to the rigidness of Frankie's muscles, she makes him relax into her touch, earning only a few low huffs when hitting a particularly sore spot. Mostly, though, Frankie stays quiet, and Jay doesn't speak either. It's enough to just do this for him, to touch him, love him with her hands, make him feel good. He sighs a couple of times, and hums low when she works through smaller knots, and it makes her smile to hear him so content.

When Jay's done, she wipes excess oil off his back with the towel, then wipes her hands before laying down next to him. His eyes are closed, his lips separated to emit a light snore. A curl falls down his forehead and Jay can't stop herself from gently combing it into his hair with her fingers. His eyelids twitch, he takes a deep breath, and opens his eyes.

"Sorry," she apologizes in a low voice, letting her fingers trail down his cheek. He smiles, and she drags her thumb along his lower lip.

"'S okay."

"How do you feel?"

"Battered. But good. Better."

"Good."

He yawns widely before turning slowly, a little clumsily, onto his back, then pulls Jay to him. She fits herself snugly against his side, hugging one arm over his chest. She doesn't say anything but waits for him to speak.

"You're so good with the kids," he eventually murmurs. Jay's eyebrows rise up in surprise. This wasn't what she expected.

"I'm no better than you are."

"I'm not good enough."

"Yes, you are." The finality is her tone is so Jay-like that Frankie has to chuckle.

"Okay. I don't feel good enough."

"That's another thing entirely," she allows, passing her hand over his heart. "I'm sorry you feel that way."

"Me too," he sighs, " but some days are just... harder."

"I know. But you're doing so well, Frankie, I'm so proud of you."

"Yeah?"

"Yeah."

"Thanks."

"You're welcome."

He smiles, finding her hand on his chest, and brings it up to his lips for a sweet kiss.

"I love you."

"I love you."

They stay like that, silent in the darkening room, Frankie breathing evenly next to her. Just as she thinks that he’s asleep, he yawns, then turns his face to her.

“Jay?”

“Mhm?”

“Would a quick fuck be totally out of the question right now?”

Jay chuckles as she props herself up on one elbow.

“You up for it now?”

“Only if you’re on top,” he admits with a cheeky grin. “I’d really want you to ride my dick.”

“Well, since you’re asking so nicely…”

He pulls her in for a kiss, and she stops running her mouth.

[qqueenofhades]

Msk accent anon

Wanted to add that unfortunately “moscow accent is the accent of white people” is a thing from the English speaking internet. As of now, it seems that everyone is actually pretty chill in terms of accents, especially since the conversation around racism in Russia doesn’t involve whiteness as of now, or at least it’s not it’s centre. It does involve it of course but it will not call itself “whiteness” and will probably focus on certain cultural aspects and “mentality” of the nation, even though people will definitely notice and comment on appearances that are not 100% slavic. Actually, it’s homophobia and sexism that is on the rise right now, not nationalism, I think?

Like there are definitely gross jokes about accents but not everyone will perceive them as something that you might bring up in polite conversation? Hard to explain. People definitely won’t pay as much attention to accents as people do with English, but our accents are not as strong, so

Given that Putin's war is literally about the Russian nation in its broadest and most violent form -- i.e. brazen land grab, imposition of one "pure" form of Russian culture, proclaimed concern for the "rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine," insistence that Ukraine (and Belarus) aren't real nations and should be returned to Russia posthaste -- I'd strongly challenge the idea that nationalism isn't on the rise in Russia and/or isn't the central part of its current geopolitical identity, at least on the institutional/government level. Likewise, yes, the Western far right (fascists) and the far left (tankies) both tend to support Russia, for different-but-kind-of-identical and ultimately equally spurious and dangerous reasons. Fascists love fascist tactics, while tankies think that only America can be imperialist and any other empire must therefore be defended and protected as being "in opposition" to America.

Far-right movements, and far-right racial movements in particular, have become increasingly transnational and universal in ideology. It doesn't particularly matter where they're based, geographically speaking. They can fill in the nation-specific myths and grievances about the Master Race and Western Culture and the Need for White Supremacy etc., but their ideological alignment goes much deeper than which nation they happen to be based in, since their (reprehensible) principles and strategic goals are identical at the core. This is an association which the Russian regime under Putin in particular, as doubtless you are already aware, has purposefully fostered and encouraged, from its open support of Trump to its provision of an ideological and structural home for the movement. If you or anyone is interested in doing further reading on the topic:

[penguininmypocket]

I agree with your username but not with anything you just said

there are many people who experience racism, misogyny and so on every day, yet they still voted trump - it's not because they think they should be deported. there ARE white supremacists who voted red, but I'm willing to bet they don't even make up the majority of trump's supporters. this is only anecdotal but just dipping into the radio and listening to people explain why they voted trump - very very few say it's because they think America needs to be a Christian ethnostate. most cite things like the cost of living, national solidarity, and a lack of satisfaction with Biden. hell, I've heard dozens of people with thick foreign accents or Latinos or queer people vote trump.

the problem certainly IS to do with all the things OP listed (and also here - read the extended version!!) and these are the things we as a global society need to be addressing. things like lack of information, misinformation and disinformation. things like AI, social media and political Twitter bots.

white supremacists make up a small proportion of the white supremacist body. most people are people who get dragged into these things, because they

- have uninformed worldview and lack critical thinking

- get so washed with certain opinions that they seem obvious (eg, the economy is the fault of immigrants)

- have to be extreme to be heard

- have to pick one or the other

the list goes on and on - but the point is that none of these are the fault of the individual. the reason trump (and all the other global far-right groups on the rise - the AfD and Reform UK are the ones closest to me) can get these masses to unfalteringly unquestioningly follow them is a societal thing, and a structural thing. I'm very much not a sympathetic person but I do hold sympathy for right-wing voters who are shooting themselves in the feet without even realising.

I can highly recommend this video:

which is an insider's insight into exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

your attitude also isn't your fault - for exactly the same reasons. politics has become so polarising that no matter what happens, 49% of the populace are angry. but it's an unhelpful attitude and unsympathetic. it will do nothing in ways of fixing the matters at hand because it fails to address them

things we need to address:

gen z men getting pulled into alt-right pipelines through andrew tate, joe rogan, elon musk, jordan peterson etc

the gullibility and stupidity of half the country voting against our collective best interests

the broad effect social media has on public and common good

lazy minds and lack of empathy

outside-country interference (trump and elon’s connections to russia and the amount of bots from other countries spreading misinformation)

the long-term effects of AI and rampant disinformation

[hjellacott]

And now a pause for the USA Elections 2024

You know I'm European, but with the elections THIS close, I must pause and talk to you about them.

I know you're fed up. Perhaps you didn't like Biden. Perhaps you hate Democrats. Perhaps your entire family has always voted Republican. Or you're concerned with the erasure of women by the trans collective, or the far left, or the Woke movement, or you hate gays, or you're Catholic, or you hate the immigrants, or you're worried by the high amount of foreigners in your city, "taking your jobs".

Well I'm European, but I'm also a woman, and bisexual, and feminist, and I was raised Catholic, and I am an immigrant where I live. I understand all those bits, and I understand you and I will disagree in a billion things. But the thing is, you and I CAN disagree. You and Biden, you and Harris, you and the Democrats, CAN disagree.

You can go on industrial action with the Democrats. You can take them to court, you can cancel them, you can protest in the streets, you can strike, you can write articles bullshitting. Because Democrats will always protect your freedom, your Constitution, your right to be angry, to disagree, to protest, to complain, to seek a better life. If you think Republicans under Trump will, you need to take a look into European history. A proper one.

That is why I'm here talking to you. Listen, I don't like the USA. I never have. But I am here for you, talking to you, trying to be a friend to you, because I understand that, differences aside, my parents lived dictatorships. My grandparents lived dictatorships and fought civil wars. My entire continent suffered Nazi Germany, and fascist Italy, fascist Spain, and the rise of the far-right now. And I can tell you when we listen to Trump talking, when we watch his speeches, his conventions, see what he does... It's like he's copying Hitler word for word. Hitler was also democratically chosen. Hitler started by telling Germans "listen, your struggles are because the Jews are taking your jobs". Trump's propaganda techniques are TEXTBOOK Nazi Propaganda. In the beginning, like Trump, he wasn't too bad. He seemed inoffensive. Most Germans didn't even know about the holocaust until it'd been happening for years. He didn't start raiding homes and killing people left and right immediately, it took him a few years. So his party defended him, figured out he wouldn't so bad... By the time they realised just how bad he was, he had become so powerful it was too late and they could no longer vote him out. We, Europeans, know enough about our own history to see exactly how identical yours is getting to our past, and to be able to warn you. So please do listen.

We are not exaggerating or being dramatic. I'm not a Democrat, I don't favour Harris for any reason. I simply know my history pretty damn well. I know that when people like Trump "joke" about no longer having elections, about becoming a dictator, about kicking people out, about removing immigrants or POC... you can think he's joking, but I promise you he isn't. I've seen it before. Us in Europe learned the lesson in the worst, cruellest, most tragic of ways.

If you're a Republican, this is your opportunity to tell your party you will not align with the likes of Trump, who are a threat to the very essence of the United States of America, and who represents the worst of humankind, and everything the USA is supposed to stand against. Don't support Republicans until they change their leader. Don't give your vote to a man drunk on power dying to blow up women's health, freedom of marriage, to destroy your Congress, your Constitution, your freedom, your democracy. Doesn't matter what he says now, believe what he's DONE. Believe what he's been saying for years. Believe your eyes when you saw what he did to your Congress. He doesn't give a shit about you. You're below him. He only cares about himself. He doesn't even care about his wife and his children. And he will burn your country to the ground if that's what it takes for him to have more money and more power.

I can't tell you Harris will be a great president, I can't know that. I'm sure you'll find things to disagree about with her. But I can tell you she'll keep your freedom to do so. I can tell you voting Trump is voting to shoot your country. You might as well set bombs in the streets. Voting Trump is voting for a future with no more elections, no more freedom, no more peace, no more rights. He's no Jesus. I read the Bible. I know Jesus when I see it, and it's not Trump. He's more like Satan. He's the devil in sheepskin, and you've got to listen. With him in power, forget about striking, protesting, using justice and democracy to fight for those things you want. With him in power, there will only be his word, his voice, his way. Be warned.

[tommycorriander]

Leftists on Twitter are once again deciding disabled folks and people of colour are acceptable collateral re:education, so I'm unpacking that.

A lot of left leaning folks want to abolish homeschooling in America, but fail to actually contend with what that means in the current climate not just in the educational system, but in the general political landscape as well. For the most part they seem to be against homsechooling for understandable reasons: abusive parents often use homsechooling to isolate their children, and far right parents use it for the purposes of indoctrination. The problem with their proposed solution is that it doesn't actually fix anything, and ends up hurting people in the crossfire.

Yes, far right parents do use homeschooling as a tool to isolate their children, and so do abusive parents for the same reasons. But a ban on homeschooling without first completely overhauling the current public education system not only harms disabled students and students of colour, but also ignores the abuse present in the public schooling system AND the propaganda fed by the system. It's incredibly short sighted and frankly, if you've been paying attention, this information shouldn't be surprising or new. You're telling me you expect marginalized students to get a balanced public education in fucking Florida? That isn't happening in the current climate, or even in any recent future.

If you actually wanted to help marginalized folks AND stop the rise in fascism, you would pay more attention to your local public schools. You'd pay more attention to policy at a higher level (namely state; while the federal level has general educational requirements, states decide curriculum). You'd fight against the redlining that is still ongoing in segregating disproportionately communities of colour into lower funded schools. You'd pay attention to the school boards that *you* elect. You'd fight for schools to actually follow through on their 504s and IEPs, if they're even willing to provide them at all.

Yes, there are bad actors in homeschooling. But don't fucking act like you care about kids when you won't put in even the bare minimum of casting a vote for school board members for the schools in your area. If you actually care, if you are coming at homsechooling from a place of wanting to help, reevaluate your efforts in the community you live in.

[chargetheintruder]

EAS: Inversion in progress.

Or to put it more simply, the Next Big Lie is out in the open, from Trump and his:

To put it simply: Republicans know Trump is beatable on a legitimate, rational level. They know they have to cheat and cause an illegitimate election process to make a Trump win happen.

So they have a plan to attack the legitimacy of the 2024 Election wherever it doesn't go their way, and to subvert established Election Law whenever and wherever possible. They will accuse US of exactly what they're doing.

This is why I've become a "fuck the whole bunch" person as of late. It's not just Donald Trump--he and his toxic ass, knot of malformed personalities he calls a "family" are only a focal point. It's that Trump is enough of a blank slate and enough of an enabler, that any and all fascist freak-shows among conservatives feel they get a free pass to be their absolute worst. So confirmed racist Hulk Hogan shows up for pure nostalgia value at a convention where J.D. Vance's own wife is also targeted with sneers and racist slurs. Among lots of other craziness.

And yes, many among the One Percent, who own the Media and own the Press, will swear up and down that "they're just bored" and that "this is just entertainment" and that nobody should take this Asylum Rules Shit-Show seriously. And yet . . . they do take the freak-show seriously by funding it and by insisting that the Media and Snopes gives Trump all of the delicate softball questions in the fucking world.

And then you have Ketamine-Addled Apartheid Boy, a.k.a. Elon Musk over there, not even hiding whose side he's on and who he wants to see ruin America, the way he ruined Twitter.

Sorry for the slight tangent here, but it's been hardmode for me this week. I'm seriously sick and exhausted. And yet I'm filtering this bullshit as best I can to try to get people to not just vote, but to raise whatever hell on earth they can, to try to save this head-fucked, but reformable society, and to keep it from being replaced by an irredeemable dictatorship.

Point is: Trump and his have a plan to disrupt and subvert the 2024 Election entirely, before the votes are even counted. They want to suppress the whole damned thing, in essence, under color of perversion of State and Local Law. They want their people to go Sovereign Citizen on the whole damned thing, up to and including using Local Police as a Fifth Column.

So while a 3-month window seems ridiculously long for an Emergency Alert? The truth is, dear readers, you have no fucking idea how different real-life, lowercase democrats are from the Official, and especially Federal, Elected Democrats (tm) we're stuck voting for. The real-life, lowercase version isn't averse to actually doing shit when it's necessary. The Official, Federal Version, has had their heads so far up Gandhi's, JFK's, and Dr. King's buttocks for so long that 75 to 90 percent of their politics boils down to either defeatism or do-nothing-ism. You have to scream at these bastards for weeks to months to get a rise out of any of them.

And this is a problem when you consider that we have an Election, and its DEADLINES, coming right up.

[evanthefunky]

Thinking about the news cycle and someone else said it but. The problem with living in an era with live television and social media updated every millisecond is that we, in one corner of the earth, are instantly (or nearly so) aware of trouble or joy happening in another corner. And then we move on.

We here in the US know about Ukraine and their fight, we know about Iran women and their fight. Those are really the only two I've seen, though, recently.

They are historic events, but because the whole world can be aware of them and praying and hoping for one outcome or another, it doesn't really feel like it. Newscasters or reporters say "these are historic times" and I say "its just thursday." That doesn't mean I'm less impacted or affected by these events- my heart hurts for them. But my heart can only hurt so much before even the most empathetic and sympathic people care too much and forget how much we're "supposed" to feel.

Before the intant-news of today, or i suppose the past 200~ years, (back to 1822, approx. When did they make the telegram? I suppose, though, this limits me in what I believe to be instantaneous. But I digress.) knowing what is going on in someone else's corner means we're all focused on it for some time, and then move on.

Or maybe, is that something only new?

When did we stop focusing on something horrible or amazing until it was done? When did we decide to shorten our attentions? When did we decide the right amount of time before we generally move on?

Is it something that came around during my generation, Gen Z?

I ask all this, really, because I see Ukraine signs or flags or the cool trident-like symbol as bumper stickers or signs in people's yards, declaring to their neighbors, "I stand with Ukraine!"

...ok, doesn't everyone?

This is different with the women (and other people, but women seem to have the spotlight because news channels want to focus on the right to or not to wear a hijab, when I have heard its more like everyone wants that government/regime? To be replaced ad gone?) in Iran. I see less support for them in ways of signs in yards or bumper stickers on cars. Do we support our sisters and family less? Why? Because its a country in the Middle East? Because they're Muslim? Because they're brown, and not European white? Because Russia has always been the big bad, so its easy to face against them, cheering on Ukraine (with just that? Cheers?), but Iran is more messy because... well... you're afraid? To support people wanting huge change?

On the one hand, I'm glad the US military (as far as I'm aware, and I'm not very, admittedly) is keeping their fingers out of Iran to help the people. On the other, I wish there was more sympathy for people rising up. Isn't that our (USA) thing? We couldn't help but keep our noses in the Middle East when it was relevant toooo.... *checks notes* suppressing terrorism (oh what was deemed as such) and keeping American Gas Prices Low (*stands all high-and-mighty such*), but when it comes to what seems to be, I guess, a civil, or peoples' right, we're not so keen.

My original point of this post was to point out how in ye olden days (that weren't really that long ago- 200~ years ago?), my history books point out things that happened in one place, and then another, and help me realize these two major events overlapped. Like a Chinese Dynasty falling and a middle-america indigenous nation rising, or something. And how the future history books will put, say, 9-11-2001 just a few pages before 2020 Pandemic, and then, oh, also This, This, and This happened. In two years.

Are we just going to get more close together in "historic" events? What's going to be big enough and affect (effect???) enough to be worth putting on the history book's page, because, well gee, the 2024 Irish Rebellion (Successful! Edition) is coming up and we can't exactly dedicate a history book to single 30 year period! But what if that much stuff happens? How do we know what is going to really make an impact in the long run?

I'm tired of "historic" events. I get that when I was younger, historic stuff was happening (maybe) and I just wasn't aware because I was 10, but this seems a little outrageous. Is it just because the world is more interconnected? Has it always been like this? Why are we getting more events like this? Is it just the season/part of the cycle? What cycle????

I'm tired.

[blackgirlsuperherorants]

There's a tweet going around about how someone couldn't understand Doctor Strange 2 because they didn't watch Spider-Man NWH and WandaVision, and like ... yeah.

First let me say that I don't think you need No Way Home. It might give you some multiverse insight, but it's not instrumental to the plot of Multiverse of Madness. But otherwise, yeah. You needed to watch WandaVision. You need to watch previous MCU movies. If you don't, you're not going to understand everything. (I also think some people that didn't watch WV think that the new characters were introduced there or that the multiverse happened and we all understood it. But nah, just Wanda's sons and the fact that she became the Scarlet Witch.)

But why are people upset at the MCU for being a connected universe? This isn't a new development, and it would be bad if it all of a sudden wasn't a connected universe. Y'all not reading books 3 and 4 before reading book 5 is your own fault, not the movie's fault.

I have said this before and people get mad because they think I'm saying it's a direct copy, but the MCU works like comics. What I mean by that is, the story is continuous and ongoing. If you read comics, you should know what I mean. You can sometimes pick up a book and follow everything, but sometimes you didn't read the latest run of Spider-Man and you don't know why Peter Parker is depressed about his divorce from MJ and his Spidey sense is off because of his broken heart, even though you're reading a Captain Marvel comic and Spider-Man only shows up in some panels when they're fighting together for some reason, and his Spidey sense throws off their mission. Sure, it can be confusing, but that's just how reading comics is and it's okay.

Watching MCU movies is the same way. Sometimes, you don't know why Wanda is depressed about losing kids you didn't know she had and why she plans to jump universes to find said kids. But the difference is that it's far easier to watch everything the MCU puts out than to read every comic that Marvel publishes. It's been like 15 years. If you don't know by now that you need to watch every movie or TV show to understand everything, or just reconcile that you will not understand plot points from the things you missed, that's your fault. This line everyone keeps repeating "A good movie shouldn't need you to watch anything else" is simply not true, and nobody would say it if it wasn't about the MCU, which is the big film punchingbag right now. Nobody would watch the 5th Harry Potter movie and complain that they didn't understand even though they didn't watch the 2, 3, and 4. If they did, everyone would call them an idiot, because they skipped movies. Nobody would watch Rise of Skywalker and complain that they didn't know who anyone was even though they didn't watch The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi.

You can't skip movies in a franchise and be mad at them for having continuity. Everyone else watched the other stuff and wants the continuity. You dropped the ball, not the other way around.

But also, I think most people just are assuming we meet America Chavez and the Illuminati before in WandaVision or No Way Home. Because the only WandaVision detail that matters is that she lost her sons, who she created through magic, and that she wants them back. And again, nothing from No Way Home really matters much, except that Strange mentions it in passing to America. If you couldn't follow Multiverse of Madness because of two little boys and Wanda's power, then yeah, maybe it is time for you to sit the MCU out.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Everyone knows about Abe Lincoln and JFK, and people are starting to come around to James Garfield because his assassin was a cartoon character (kicked out of a sex cult for being too weird, narcissistic conman, delusions of grandeur, claimed to speak to God), but nobody ever remembers William McKinley. Booth and Oswald are big names, Guiteau is becoming a meme, but Czolgosz (chole-gosh) is largely unheard of unless you're a fan of the Assassins musical.

McKinley was elected in 1896, his VP died in 1899, so he needed a new running mate for 1900. At the time, New York was a wretched hive of scum and villainy (not much has changed), and the Republicans in power were terrified of a rising star named Theodore Roosevelt, who was famously anti-corruption, anti-big business, pro-reform, pro-regulation, and VERY popular among the people. If the party bosses wanted to maintain their grip on power, they needed to get Teddy as far away from New York as possible, so they pulled some strings behind the scenes to have him reassigned to the most useless job in America, that of the Vice President. Back then, as now, the VP didn't really do anything. It was a largely ceremonial position meant to unite bickering factions within the majority party. Their only constitutional job was breaking ties in the senate (which almost never happened), so they ended up getting assigned random shit the president didn't want to do himself. The VP has no power, so the New York party bosses thought it was the perfect place to stick Roosevelt to keep him from interfering in their corruption. McKinley won re-election, Roosevelt was sworn in as VP, and half a year later the anarchist Leon Czolgosz shot McKinley in the chest and made Roosevelt the new president. This was the party bosses worst fear come true; in their efforts to resign him to irrelevancy, they had accidentally elevated their political rival to the highest office in the country, and he wasted no time to use his newfound power to wipe the floor with them!

McKinley is more famous for being Teddy Roosevelt's predecessor than anything else, and Czolgosz is written off as a random and unmotivated crazy person (contrary to popular belief, anarchism isn't literally chaos for chaos sake, it's anti-government and anti-state; he was hoping to decapitate the United States to force systemic change, and while he didn't totally succeed, he did install a president who fought against corruption).

That's not to say TR was some bastion of progressivism (though he did lead the so named Progressive Party); he was virulently racist, imperialist, colonialist, and liked to hunt endangered big game for sport. What good he did for workers' rights and environmentalism was largely outweighed by the bad he did against all the "savage islanders" he hoped to "pacify and educate." McKinley's assassination was historically significant, certainly more so than Garfield's. Nobody cares what Chester Alan Arthur did as president! Do you even know? Immigration quotas, maybe. Anything else? It was the 1880s, people were still reeling from the sudden end of Reconstruction and implementation of Jim Crow laws because of Rutherford B. Hayes's corrupt bargain in 1877.

William McKinley was called the Assassination of the Century, a title he held for all of 13 years before a certain Austrian Archduke got shot by a Bosnian Serb in Sarajevo.

[brandybradyrandyandyndy]

Mark Forster's role in the Ace Attorney franchise

Okay, first off:

I'm not a fan of Mark Forster's music, please don't take this post the wrong way

There might be some aa trilogy spoilers

Also, I admit this title is pretty bold for what I'm going to say on this topic, but I watch The Voice of Germany with my sister every week and one of the coaches is Mark Forster who I only know like five songs of in total, but his song "Au Revoir" (which is actually a terrible song btw. It's so catchy, I've had it stuck in my head since I woke up this morning and it ruined my day.) kind of reminded me of the whole "Prosecutor Miles Edgeworth chooses death." thing, because the only thing I knew about this song was the refrain:

which would be roughly translated to:

"There is nothing that's holding me back, au revoir / Forget who I was / Forget my name / It will never be the way it was before / I'm off / Au revoir"

But as I looked further into the lyrics I found out there is a "rap part" which tells you about the places the lyrical I will go to when they're away and it contains a passage that adds a beautiful twist to my theory/headcanon (I'm not sure what to call this yet).

"I'm sitting on the Mayan throne in the jungle / [...] / The phoenix is taking off now"

You see where I'm going with this? I know, it's not Phoenix who's leaving and I know the lyrics refer to the Maya Civilization from Mesoamerica, but I thought it was a funny coincidence, that not only does the word "Phoenix" appear in the lyrics of this song, but so does "Maya".

So when I first saw this part of "Au Revoir", I started imagining how Miles Edgeworth would listen to this song and like dramatically sing along to it and start crying or something, but this only posed another question:

How could this scenario happen? How and why would he even come in contact with this song?

My first guess was, Miles probably went to Germany after he left his note, because he grew up there (I think), when he had been adopted by Manfred von Karma as a child, and he heard the song somewhere in the radio because in Germany they blast Mark Forster's music in almost every public space, so there is no escape from it ever. I tried to find out, during which timespan Miles left America, just to make sure if there was a chance that he actually could have heard it on the radio.

In the Ace Attorney wiki this timespan isn't clearly mentioned, but since the last case (Rise from the Ashes) from the first game is set in February 2017 and Edgeworth returns to America in March 2018 I'm guessing, this is exactly the time window in which he's in Germany* (minus some days/weeks of course, because I don't think he'd just leave on the exact same day he had his last trial in America). *to make this easier for me I'm just assuming he spends the entirety of his travels in Germany

But this brings me to my problem, the German Charts of 2017/2018.

As you can see, the only songs by Mark Forster that were in the charts while Miles would be in Germany are the ones above. This means that it is highly unlikely that he knew of "Au Revoir" from the radio, because why would they play this old song if they could also play Mark Forster's more recent songs that are popular right now?

But when exactly was "Au Revoir" popular enough to be in the German Charts?

During my research I looked up these years, too, and it came down to 2014 (the year "Au Revoir" was released) and even a year later in 2015. So there is no way he could have known of this song if his most recent stay in Germany was in 2017, right? (I mean, unless the German people he met then, had literally no taste and forced him to listen to it.)

But I have a pretty simple and logical explanation on how he could have still known of this song, even though he probably wouldn't have heard it in Germany in 2017.

I tried really hard, but I couldn't for my life find real data on Mark Forster's demographic, so just believe me if I tell you that his demographic is mostly preteen and teenage girls. Also, it's worth mentioning that Mark Forster's music is pretty much only known in German speaking countries like Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Now, let's take a closer look at the years, in which Au Revoir was most popular: 2014 and 2015

Who could Miles Edgeworth possibly know, who in 2014/2015 is 1. German, 2. a teenager and 3. a girl? The answer is quite obvious:

His younger sister Franziska von Karma.

Considering that she was either 14 or 15 when "Au Revoir" was released, she fits Mark Forster's demographic perfectly and although I'm not 100% sure if she was in Germany then, I still believe, she must have had at least some connection to Germany in some way, maybe a German friend who she still was in contact with or maybe she had access to German tv, maybe German YouTube channels or social media. And don't get me wrong, I love Franziska von Karma and I wouldn't wish anything bad on her, but at the same time I strongly believe that she'd be the kind of girl who'd have gone through a Mark Forster phase as a teen.

Now remember that I, myself, have a sister. I know what siblings do to annoy each other and I just know from the bottom of my heart that if Franziska really was a fan of Mark Forster's music, she would blast it on any opportunity she'd get. Or she would at least talk about him and his songs with her brother. Believe me. If Franziska really listened to Mark Forster, Miles would have known of him, too. There is literally no other way. (For reference, I know every 1D member's name, birthday and relationship status, although I literally do not care about any of them at all, only because my sister is obsessed with them and talks about them 24/7. Meanwhile the only MCR member I know, is Gerard Way, even though I listen to their music on the daily.)

So here is my conclusion.

Miles Edgeworth definitely listened to "Au Revoir" by Mark Forster on the plane from Japanifornia to Germany and he also definitely cried, after he made sure nobody could see him (especially during the part "Der Phönix macht jetz 'n Abflug"/"The phoenix is taking off now"). Also, he probably listened to the song multiple times during his stay in Germany and you literally can't prove me wrong on this. I mean you could try, but I invested way too much of my time in this to actually care about another person's opinion on my shitty headcanon.

Also, the moment Franziska met Phoenix and Maya, her memories vaulted her right back to her Mark Forster phase and her hatred against Phoenix wasn't solely based on the fact that he was accountable for the conviction of her father Manfred von Karma, her hatred was also ignited by the fact that she probably had "Au Revoir" stuck in her head because of these two for the rest of the day and I just know that this must have completely ruined it for her.

Also, unrelated to anything I've said prior:

Klavier Gavin would definitely collaborate with Mark Forster on at least one song and however severe Franziska's Mark Forster phase might have been, I am convinced Klavier would have outdone her by far. I haven't played AJAA yet, but as much as I've gathered from the fandom, he's like a weeaboo but with Germany, I think? I'm absolutely sure, he wouldn't ever miss a chance like this.

Finally, here is the song this whole post is about:

[normal-thoughts-official]

Fandom racism anon here and yeah absolutely (I didn't realise I had anon on lol)

Because while LOTR has problems within its themes (ie the orcs can be seen as to be coded as people of colour, especially since they ride elephants) the explicit message of the book is evil bad

Because the only people who work for sauron are evil. There are no morally grey people, they aren't misguided or tricked they just are evil and want to take over the world

And yeah I totally agree that this is more of a literal take on like empirical war (is that the word) and that makes total sense considering Tolkiens history

Whereas I would say that the allegories in shaowhunters is way more based on racial conflict within a country itself especially slavery, I can't remember if this is show Canon but is it that they have the warlock tropheys? I remember that in the books magnus talks about shadowhunters hanging warlock marks on their walls? (sorry to bring the books up)

Idk it's very hollow to me, unlike with LOTR though it's a different allegory it's totally irritating to show many of these supremecists as morally misled. LOTR says bad guys are bad guys, shadowhunters says well yeah they did follow a guy which thinks that downworlders are subhuman and should be eradicated but they just made a mistake

I want to compare this to tfatws which while it isn't really fantasy I just feel like it shows how the priorities of the writer can impact the message of the show so powerfully (I know u aren't up to date so I'm gonna be pretty vague)

There's a scene in tfatws where the new white perfect captain America does something bad and doesn't pay for the consequences - done to comment on white privelege and how America condones white supremacy and how Sam is in comparison to that

Mayrse and Robert revealed to be part of the circle! And paid no consequences Shock horror my parents were the bad guys (even rho they were either implicitly or explicitly extremely racist the entire time) also I haven't finished the seires but do the lightwoods ever try to get their parents to face the consequences?)

Only one actual really critiques the situation and the reality behind it whereas the other one is just to centre the white characters once again and present them in a further sympathetic light

AND ANOTHER THING! I was mostly talking about show Canon here and I'm sorry to bring up the books but I literally can't believe I hadn't picked up in this before.

So like downworlders = people of colour, Simon is a vampire so is coded as a person of colour. However in the books in the last one he stops being a vampire and becomes a shadowhunters instead, coincidentally that's also when he starts dating Izzy HOW IS THIS ABLE TO HAPPEN!!????

I mean I know cassandra clare is lazy right? The original seires is by far the worst of all her writings but come ON!!!!! By the allegory has he become the white man!????? These books made no fuckin sense when I read them at 15 and they make no sense now I'm digressing anyways

I don't know man I wrote this ask because I was trying to find some fantasy book recommendations on booktube and SO MANY of them were about slavery or general ly extrême préjudice with à White protagonist to save this 'poor souls'.

Also I was watching guardians of the galexy the other day and realised nearly every movie set in space is just bigger stakes imperialism - planets instead of countries. Literally star wars, star trek, guardians of the galexy 2, avengers infinity war - all are facing genocidal imperialistic villains without actually paying much, if any attention to those effected

Just writing this ask made me exhausted I'm so tired of lazy writing and exploiting other people's struggle. I'm white and I'm trying to be more critical about the movies, shows and books I watch and read but let me know if I said something off here❤️❤️ you gotta get up to date with tfatws man, Sambucky nation is THRIVING!!!!

i'm not sure i agree that the whole "the evil people are evil" thing is a good thing, because i feel like more often than not making the bad characters just like... unidimensionally evil just means that the reader will be like "lol i could NEVER be that guy" and when it comes to racism that is a dangerous road to take because white people already believe that racism is something that Only The Most Evil People, Ergo, Not Me, Can Do, which makes discussions of stuff like subconscious racial bias and active antiracist work become more difficult because people don't believe they CAN be racist unless they're like, Lord Voldemort

which is not to say that racism should be treated as morally ambiguous, just that the workings of racism should be represented as something that is not done only by the Most Hardcore And Evil, but rather as a part of a system of oppression that affects the way everyone sees the world and interacts with it and lives in it

yes the warlock trophies are mentioned in the show, albeit very quickly (there is a circle member who tells magnus that his cat eyes will make "a nice addition to his collection" and then it's never mentioned again because this is sh and we love using racism for shock value but then not actually treating it as a serious plot point or something that affects oppressed ppl). and you are absolutely right, shadowhunters (and hp, and most fantasy books) has genocide as its core conflict and treats it, like you said, in a very hollow way, treating racism as both not a big deal and not something that is part of a system of oppression, but really the actions of a few Very Bad People. it's almost impressive how they manage to do both at the same time tbh

i think you hit the nail right on the head with this comment, actually. for most of these works, racism is SHOCK VALUE. it's just like "lol isn't it bad that this bad guy wants to kill a gazillion people just because they are muggles? now that is fucked up" but it's not actually an issue. in fact, when this guy is defeated, the whole problem is over! racism is not something that is embedded into that world, it's not a systemic issue, it's not even actually part of what drives the plot. the things that led to this person not only existing but rising to power and gathering enough followers to be a real threat to the whole world are never mentioned. it's like racists are born out of thin air, which is dangerously close to implying that racism is just a natural part of life, tbh

anyway my point is, it is never supposed to be questioned, it is never part of a deeper plot or story, its implications are barely addressed except for a few fleeting comments them and there; so, it's not a critique, it's shock value, even though it is frequently disguised as a critique (which is always empty and shallow anyway. like what is the REAL critique in works like hp or sh/tsc other than "genocide is bad"? wow such a groundbreaking take evelyn)

about simon and the book thing: i actually knew about this and the weird thing about this is that, like... simon is jewish, and he's implied to be ashkenazi (calls his grandma bubbe which is yiddish, which is a language spoken by the ashkenazi ppl), and it seems like cc is always toeing the line between him being accepted by shadowhunters and then not accepted by them, which sounds a lot like antisemitic tropes and history of swinging between (ashkenazi) jewish ppl being seen as the model minority myth and thus used as an example by white christians, and being hated and persecuted. i'm not super qualified to talk about this since i'm not jewish and i'm still learning about/unlearning antisemitism and its tropes, and i don't really have a fully formed thought on that, tbh; it just reminds me of the whole "model minority" swinging, where one second simon is part of the majority, the other he's not, but always he is supposed to give up a part of himself and his identity in other to be "assimilated" by shadowhunter culture. this article (link) covers a book on jewish people and assimilationism into USan culture, this article (link) covers british jews' relationship with being considered an ethnic group, and this article (link) talks a bit about the model minority myth from the perspective of an asian jewish woman

it just really calls to my attention that cc chose to make her ashkenazi jewish character start off as a downworlder and then become a shadowhunter. i don't think she made that decision as a conscious nod to this history, because it would require being informed on antisemitism lol but it's incredible how you can always see bigoted stereotypes shining through her narrative choices completely by accident. it just really shows how ingrained it is in our collective minds and culture

and anyway, making a character go from the oppressed group to just suddenly become the oppressor is just. wtf. not how oppression works, but most of all, really disrespectful, especially because she clearly treats it as an "upgrade"/"glowup" that earns him the Love Of His Life

also, out of curiosity, are you french? it seems like your autocorrect changed a few words and i'm pretty sure extrême and préjudice are the french versions of these words, and since u said ur white, that's where my money would be lol

[script-a-world]

I hope this isn't a silly question but can beaches be in downtown areas? I personally live in a downtown area full of high rises with the harbour right in front of it. So why can't harbour be replaced with beach. Also some beach pics I find actually have lots of high rises in the backdrop, aren't those downtown areas too? Anyway both my beta and a writing friend are saying that beach in downtown makes no sense.

Synth: Downtown beaches are absolutely a thing that exist, though depending on the level of urbanization, they may not be naturally occurring ones. Last year the city I live in built a permanent beach downtown. Replaced an old docking area with gently sloping concrete slabs and dumped a whole load of sand on them. It has been very popular. IIRC Paris does something similar, trucking in huge amounts of sand to build temporary beaches in a few spots along the Seine during summertime (IDK what happens with all the sand when summer is over). If your city was carefully planned by the original builders, it’s not far-fetched at all to think they would have worked around any already existing natural beaches to preserve them for its citizens’ use.

Tex: I need to orient myself a little bit on this question, so I’m going to pull out a few definitions here.

Downtown:

Downtown is a term primarily used in North America by English-speakers to refer to a city's commercial, cultural and often the historical, political and geographic heart, and is often synonymous with its central business district(CBD). In British English, the term "city centre" is most often used instead. The two terms are used interchangeably in Colombia.

The Oxford English Dictionary's first citation for "down town" or "downtown" dates to 1770, in reference to the center of Boston.[2] Some have posited that the term "downtown" was coined in New York City, where it was in use by the 1830s to refer to the original town at the southern tip of the island of Manhattan.[3] As the town of New York grew into a city, the only direction it could grow on the island was toward the north, proceeding upriver from the original settlement, the "up" and "down" terminology coming from the customary map design in which up was north and down was south.[3] Thus, anything north of the original town became known as "uptown" (Upper Manhattan), and was generally a residential area, while the original town – which was also New York's only major center of business at the time – became known as "downtown" (Lower Manhattan).[3]

Beach:

A beach is a landform alongside a body of water which consists of loose particles. The particles composing a beach are typically made from rock, such as sand, gravel, shingle, pebbles. The particles can also be biological in origin, such as mollusc shells or coralline algae.

Some beaches have man-made infrastructure, such as lifeguard posts, changing rooms, showers, shacks and bars. They may also have hospitality venues (such as resorts, camps, hotels, and restaurants) nearby. Wild beaches, also known as undeveloped or undiscovered beaches, are not developed in this manner. Wild beaches can be appreciated for their untouched beauty and preserved nature.

Beaches typically occur in areas along the coast where wave or current action deposits and reworks sediments.

Harbour:

A harbor or harbour (see spelling differences; synonyms: wharves, haven) is a sheltered body of water where ships, boats, and barges can be docked. The term harbor is often used interchangeably with port, which is a man-made facility built for loading and unloading vessels and dropping off and picking up passengers. Ports usually include one or more harbors. Alexandria Port in Egypt is an example of a port with two harbors.

Harbors may be natural or artificial. An artificial harbor can have deliberately constructed breakwaters, sea walls, or jettys or they can be constructed by dredging, which requires maintenance by further periodic dredging. An example of an artificial harbor is Long Beach Harbor, California, United States, which was an array of salt marshes and tidal flats too shallow for modern merchant ships before it was first dredged in the early 20th century.[1] In contrast, a natural harbor is surrounded on several sides by prominences of land. Examples of natural harbors include Sydney Harbour, Australia and Trincomalee Harbour in Sri Lanka.

Since “downtown” usually means a highly-developed area, there’s a 50/50 chance that they’ll even be near a body of water - and if they are, the coastal areas are possibly also developed into harbours/wharves because water transportation of goods is economically efficient. Under these constraints, a beach would be a stretch of un- or under-developed coastline that doesn’t generate as much revenue for the taxable area it’s connected to compared to a harbour.

Frequently, beaches generate revenue under the auspices of tourism, which means that the area would be cultivated accordingly - esplanades, or promenades, are a popular choice, and often grow near a harbor as a natural extension of a money-generating area. Seaside resorts are a closely-related cousin of esplanades, and sometimes have the focus of being a retreat.

Many of the beaches I’ve been to that have high-rises in the background are either those of hotels - who might own the beach property adjacent to their building(s) - or those of businesses. Idyllic beachfront properties that have a low overall skyline can be low-populated areas (which usually mean drawing a low-income from tourism), protected areas of varying degrees, unsafe for people to play in, or are owned by people in the immediate residential areas and thus private property.

Artificially-constructed beaches, as Synth mentioned, are possible but often costly because of the amount of effort and material that needs to be brought in. Those who build such things need to consider the possible costs and revenue of a beach compared to a harbor, and whether it would be financially beneficial for the area to convert it.

Highly-developed areas like city centers carry the risk of polluting the nearby environment, as evidenced by the history of:

The Nashua River in the US

The Ganges River of the Indian subcontinent

The Citarum River in Indonesia

The Yellow River in China

The Sarno River in Italy

The Matanza River of Argentina

The Gulf of Mexico “dead zone”

The Kamilo Beach of Hawai’i

Guanabara Bay in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Bajos de Haina in the Dominican Republic

Hann Bay in Senegal

Your beta and writing friend do, unfortunately, have a point - downtown beaches are rarely a thing, and if they are then they’re not likely to be very well-maintained or aesthetically-pleasing. It is possible to have one, if they follow the model that Synth mentioned, but it’s usually expensive, time-consuming, difficult to keep sufficiently clean, and their existence needs to be balanced against the current revenue-generating area that is probably a harbour.

If the society you’re worldbuilding settles a coastal area with the intent to preserve the coast and develop it into a beach, you have a good shot of putting one into your story, but harbours are disinclined in many ways to be replaced by a beach.

Constablewrites: Our idea of the beach as a pleasant leisure destination seems to have started with the English upper classes in the 1700s, and expanded as the growth of the middle class and advances in travel technology made tourism accessible to a larger population. And the business district of a city is built on commerce, which in our world heavily involves shipping. So if the city was developed before industrialization, its planners were far more likely to look at a beach and think “what a terrible place to unload a ship, we should fix that” than “oh, how pretty, people might come here to relax.” Plus, “downtown” generally refers to an area of only a few square miles at most where real estate is in high demand, so any stretch of open land is unlikely to remain open for long.

Now, because today we do value beaches as pleasant leisure destinations, it’s entirely possible that a city might create an artificial beach along its coast. River beaches are also a thing in several European cities, and many of them are temporary summer installations made with imported sand. And though they’re unlikely to be strictly in the downtown area, you can indeed find beaches in highly urbanized areas like in Miami, Vancouver, and frankly most of Southern California but let’s specifically say Santa Monica. But a city developing organically isn’t going to have a beach unless there’s significant incentive to designate and maintain one instead of using that land for something more lucrative. And unless the city was founded and built specifically around tourism, a beach is always going to be in addition to a city’s harbor, never in place of it. (Hell, even then. Cruise ships were one of the earliest and still an extremely popular method of tourism, and even if your tourists want to see the beach, they’re not getting to it without a harbor.)

Feral: Downtowns may be on waterfronts, but as previously pointed out, downtowns are generally not going to be developed on naturally occurring beaches, here being the sandy, ocean front stretches of land. Tex and Constable bring up great points about economic incentive, but also consider the physical constraints of what can be built on the beach - I think Jesus had something to say about building castles on sand, and as the son of a carpenter, I think he would know. In the States, Chicago and Charleston come to mind as being particularly relevant to your query.

Chicago is on Lake Michigan, which does have a sandy beach that is somewhat removed from downtown by various parks and smaller scale infrastructure. Downtown Charleston is a peninsula formed by the confluence of the Ashley and Cooper Rivers where they join to flow into the ocean, creating a small bay. The beaches associated with Charleston are actually on the nearby islands, not downtown Charleston, which has piers, wharfs, etc, as expected in a city founded by pirates.

A lot of the question of whether you can feasibly “build” a downtown on a beach is how built - literally - up you want it to be. The incredible innovation that went into building Chicago’s downtown, particularly its high rises and skyscrapers, is pretty well known in a general sense but you might want to look into how they were able to accomplish what they have given the very difficult topography. Charleston has no skyscrapers. In addition to the unstable, sandy soil, building in Charleston is made more unstable by being in an earthquake prone area. The big issues with downtowns being on traditional sandy beaches are the quality of the soil and bedrock and the question of erosion, which is a greater issue when dealing with ocean currents and tides.

Basically, it’s not impossible for a downtown area to have a beach, but given the issues that beaches present to building a downtown and the economic influences of why there would or would not be a beach, it’s unlikely without a lot of story behind it. And as you’re writing a story… that might be worthwhile to you. Or it might be a distraction from the story you really want to tell.