[ABANDONED] Flaring Tempers And Rising Temperatures

[Daarwyrth]

CURRENT DRAFT:

[Title] Flaring Tempers And Rising Temperatures

[Validity] Has Public Protest, Has Climate Treaty

[Description] The temperature in @@CAPITAL@@ is rapidly rising, and it's not green house gas emissions that's the culprit. A group of public protesters that deem climate change to be a @@REGION@@-wide conspiracy have staged a massive protest march across the city against @@NAME@@ being a signatory state to the climate treaty, with reports indicating that their attempts at aggressive opposition could soon boil over into violence.

[Option 1] "It's all been exposed by our national hero, that ultimate legend and government insider F," professes @@RANDOMNAME@@, a fervent supporter of the growing FAnon conspiracy theorist movement. "Y'all who signed that darn treaty are nothin' more but bloodsucking deviants who eat unborn babies and puppies, but ya vampires can't handle the heat, so ya need the cold to survive. Y'all just wanna freeze @@REGION@@ over with ya darn climate change nonsense, but we got ya all figured out, @@LEADER@@. Pull our fine nation out of that hellspawned treaty, or we'll be cranking up the heat in @@CAPITAL@@ with a few carbon emitting fires of our own..."

[Effect 1] @@LEADER@@'s apparent fear of fires have fanned the flames of conspiracy theorists

[Option 2] "This is what happens when insanity is left unchallenged," sighs your aide Fayne @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, while fanning @@HIM@@self with a fan. "Don't worry, I won't be suggesting banning public protesting, but we need our people out there refuting whatever claims protesters have gotten into their minds, whether they be conspiracy-mongering idiots, or malcontent minorities. Surely that'll leave cooler heads to prevail?"

[Effect 2] hot-headed shouting matches often result in brawls between government-sanctioned truthsayers and protesters

[Option 3] "Oh, not to worry, @@LEADER@@," says @@RANDOMNAME@@ while preparing cardboards with pro-climate treaty slogans, along with a group of supporters. "That's what public protests are for, no? One protest march rises, and another to meet it. Something, something, equal forces in opposite directions cancel each other out? Whatever, just sit tight and watch us restore balance with our own protest march."

[Effect 3] @@LEADER@@ was seen standing forlornly while waiting for a counter protest during the "@@LEADER sucks" march

[Trotterdam]

Have any anti-global-warming-prevention protestors actually accused environmentalists of trying to make the world colder? For the most part they just deny the possibility of anthropogenic climate change at all, one way or another.

[Daarwyrth]

Have any anti-global-warming-prevention protestors actually accused environmentalists of trying to make the world colder? For the most part they just deny the possibility of anthropogenic climate change at all, one way or another.

The issue is a combination of the coronavirus conspiracy theorists, and climate change opponents. In light of the stance to coronavirus-themed issues, I have decided to approach the topic of conspiracy theories around it from a different angle, namely that of climate change, instead of anything virus-related.

As such, the issue draft isn't so much about climate change deniers, but rather about conspiracy theories surrounding such subjects, and their right to public protesting if nations have that policy alongside the climate treaty one. As conspiracy theories are generally of a very far-fetched nature, I thought it appropriate to come up with a far-fetched idea here as well. Hence the reference to QAnon through FAnon, and such.

[Daarwyrth]

Comments and thoughts are always a welcome sight!

[Australian rePublic]

It's genuinely hard to tell when you're using the concept of heating and cooling literally vs figuratively

[Australian rePublic]

Have any anti-global-warming-prevention protestors actually accused environmentalists of trying to make the world colder? For the most part they just deny the possibility of anthropogenic climate change at all, one way or another.

It's not too much of a stretch. Cold weather could cause crop shortages and the increasing need for snow clearing infrastructure, which is expensive, and se people genunely believe that AGW will delay the next ice age, and that that's a good thing. It would be helpful to state why the protestors are against cooling the world, though

[Daarwyrth]

It's genuinely hard to tell when you're using the concept of heating and cooling literally vs figuratively

I am not sure I understand what you mean with this comment. Could you explain?

Have any anti-global-warming-prevention protestors actually accused environmentalists of trying to make the world colder? For the most part they just deny the possibility of anthropogenic climate change at all, one way or another.

It's not too much of a stretch. Cold weather could cause crop shortages and the increasing need for snow clearing infrastructure, which is expensive, and se people genunely believe that AGW will delay the next ice age, and that that's a good thing. It would be helpful to state why the protestors are against cooling the world, though

But it is stated why they are protesting in the premise?

A group of public protesters that deem climate change to be a @@REGION@@-wide conspiracy have staged a massive protest march across the city against @@NAME@@ being a signatory state to the climate treaty

And then it is further explained in Option 1:

It's all been exposed by our national hero, that ultimate legend and government insider F," professes @@RANDOMNAME@@, a fervent supporter of the growing FAnon conspiracy theorist movement. "Y'all who signed that darn treaty are nothin' more but bloodsucking deviants who eat unborn babies and puppies, but ya vampires can't handle the heat, so ya need the cold to survive. Y'all just wanna freeze @@REGION@@ over with ya darn climate change nonsense, but we got ya all figured out, @@LEADER@@

[Australian rePublic]

It's genuinely hard to tell when you're using the concept of heating and cooling literally vs figuratively

I am not sure I understand what you mean with this comment. Could you explain?

In the description, when you said that things were heating up, you were being figurative. In option 2, when you said things would cool down, you were being literal. It's hard to tell. Sometime it's hard to tell when you're figurative and when you're literal

It's not too much of a stretch. Cold weather could cause crop shortages and the increasing need for snow clearing infrastructure, which is expensive, and se people genunely believe that AGW will delay the next ice age, and that that's a good thing. It would be helpful to state why the protestors are against cooling the world, though

But it is stated why they are protesting in the premise?

A group of public protesters that deem climate change to be a @@REGION@@-wide conspiracy have staged a massive protest march across the city against @@NAME@@ being a signatory state to the climate treaty

And then it is further explained in Option 1:

It's all been exposed by our national hero, that ultimate legend and government insider F," professes @@RANDOMNAME@@, a fervent supporter of the growing FAnon conspiracy theorist movement. "Y'all who signed that darn treaty are nothin' more but bloodsucking deviants who eat unborn babies and puppies, but ya vampires can't handle the heat, so ya need the cold to survive. Y'all just wanna freeze @@REGION@@ over with ya darn climate change nonsense, but we got ya all figured out, @@LEADER@@

I was replying to Trotterdam

[Daarwyrth]

In the description, when you said that things were heating up, you were being figurative. In option 2, when you said things would cool down, you were being literal. It's hard to tell. Sometime it's hard to tell when you're figurative and when you're literal

But that is a play with words? In option 2 the speaker says "Surely that'll leave cooler heads to prevail", which is a play on the use of "The temperature in @@CAPITAL@@ is rapidly rising, and it's not green house gas emissions that's the culprit" from the premise. The bit from option 1 "but ya vampires can't handle the heat, so ya need the cold to survive. Y'all just wanna freeze @@REGION@@ over with ya darn climate change nonsense" is conspiracy-fueled exaggeration.

I was replying to Trotterdam

That I realise, but you had stated "It would be helpful to state why the protestors are against cooling the world, though" which is why I was somewhat confused. Apologies for the miscommunication.

[Australian rePublic]

I was replying to Trotterdam

That I realise, but you had stated "It would be helpful to state why the protestors are against cooling the world, though" which is why I was somewhat confused. Apologies for the miscommunication.

No, that part was addressed at you. You should state why they're against cooling the world

[Daarwyrth]

That I realise, but you had stated "It would be helpful to state why the protestors are against cooling the world, though" which is why I was somewhat confused. Apologies for the miscommunication.

No, that part was addressed at you. You should state why they're against cooling the world

I'm not sure what's happening here. I told you in that post to which you said "I was replying to Trotterdam" why the protesters are protesting. It's explained both in the premise and in Option 1, namely they believe in a conspiracy and basically have had their thinking twisted by that conspiracy theory. I'm not sure whether I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, or whether it's the other way around.

[Australian rePublic]

No, that part was addressed at you. You should state why they're against cooling the world

I'm not sure what's happening here. I told you in that post to which you said "I was replying to Trotterdam" why the protesters are protesting. It's explained both in the premise and in Option 1, namely they believe in a conspiracy and basically have had their thinking twisted by that conspiracy theory. I'm not sure whether I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, or whether it's the other way around.

Option 2: The speaker thinks that these people are vampires who want the world to be a colder place. Why does the speaker think that it's bad if the world is a colder place? In 10 years, the world will be colder than today? Okay, so, why is that a bad thing? Or rather, why does the speaker in option 2 think it's a bad thing?

[Daarwyrth]

I'm not sure what's happening here. I told you in that post to which you said "I was replying to Trotterdam" why the protesters are protesting. It's explained both in the premise and in Option 1, namely they believe in a conspiracy and basically have had their thinking twisted by that conspiracy theory. I'm not sure whether I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, or whether it's the other way around.

Option 2: The speaker thinks that these people are vampires who want the world to be a colder place. Why does the speaker think that it's bad if the world is a colder place? In 10 years, the world will be colder than today? Okay, so, why is that a bad thing? Or rather, why does the speaker in option 2 think it's a bad thing?

As I said before, because they have fallen victim to a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories rarely are known for being logical or reasonable. In other words, the speaker of Option 1 is against climate change because it is a government conspiracy in their mind, much alike how conspiracy theorist groups like QAnon function in reality. They believe in the conspiracy because a supposed government insider called Q says so. That is where I drew inspiration from for this issue, as the premise and Option 1 elaborate on. Because the speaker is convinced the government is comprised of vampires, they are against government policy on the matter, much alike what the case is in reality (unfortunately).

[Sacara]

My feelings on this draft are conflicted. To me, this feels a little bit like "people are upset @@NAME@@ did X, repeal it". It also feels just like an issue that deals with how to handle protests, which is rather generic. I understand you're attempting to come at it from the conspiracy theory angle, but it just doesn't feel sufficiently different IMO. The issue you are presenting in this draft is that there are protestors advocating against @@NAME@@ joining the climate treaty, which could turn violent soon. I don't think that is a very unique premise, besides the climate treaty aspect.

[Daarwyrth]

My feelings on this draft are conflicted. To me, this feels a little bit like "people are upset @@NAME@@ did X, repeal it". It also feels just like an issue that deals with how to handle protests, which is rather generic. I understand you're attempting to come at it from the conspiracy theory angle, but it just doesn't feel sufficiently different IMO. The issue you are presenting in this draft is that there are protestors advocating against @@NAME@@ joining the climate treaty, which could turn violent soon. I don't think that is a very unique premise, besides the climate treaty aspect.

Understandable! The intent behind this draft was to create something for policy combinations of Public Protest and Climate Treaty. It's not that unique of a combination, true, but I thought there might be something to try out there. Yet if something isn't good, then it isn't good, and that's okay I'll try to see if I can come up with a more interesting premise here, but most likely I'll discontinue work on this particular draft. Either way, I appreciate the feedback and honesty!