The declared danger of allowing applause in Parliament is that it can be used as a weapon. A speech becomes “good” because it is applauded a lot, not because what was said was excellent. This is apparently what the PLA tried to do when the applause reached its peak when Shorten mentioned Medicare, even a political weapon for laboratory. This has been a problem in the U.S. Congress for more than a century, as it repeatedly stands up to applaud the president when he delivers his State of the Union address, a tradition formed out of respect for the position (of head of state), but in recent decades, parties have regained the ability to use it to reflect on presidential politics. It is also the preferred method of steering public opinion towards regimes such as the Soviet Union. In the Gulag archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn tells us about a conference of the Communist Party during which the mere mention of Stalin`s name set everyone up when he was not present. A toast to the scale at the end of the conference was made minute after minute, because no one dared to be the first to stop. (The man who finally finished it after eleven minutes was then arrested and sent to the gulag for ten years.) The history of “No Clapping in the Parliament” can be traced back to Britain, as can so many parliamentary practices. You can read here how this happened, but the importance as a principle was confirmed in 1998 by a select committee which concluded: “Although we agree that at the end of a speech, spontaneous applause can in no way be interpreted as a disturbance of the spokesman, there is a risk that such a practice could be misused and, in certain circumstances, may lead to orchestration. of what would amount to standing ovations, the success or failure of a speech being judged not on its content, but on the relative length of the ovations at the end. This may not disturb a single speech, but would disturb the tone of the debate, as would the slowness of the applause of the hand. Orchestration of applause so that it can be judged on applause and not on its content? Why, it looks exactly like what happened with the aforementioned budget response.

“I tried to study finger-snapping behavior and came to an early conclusion: finger snapping is done delicately, respectfully, democratically, always in the middle of an event, while the punches, by definition louder and more disturbing, are all reserved for the end,” he wrote in the higher education chronicle. In the 1950s, beatnik poets who struggled against social conformity and the publishing industry developed in the NYC scene. Among these groups of poets were revolutionary figures like Allen Ginsberg and Gary Snyder, who performed in popular coffee cellars like the famous Gaslight Cafe. Noise problems eventually forced the actors to catch instead of clapping. While applause is often a red reaction at the end of a performance or speech, poisoning – as it is used by Beatniks, Brutes, Gamma Phi Betas – is a less official, more spontaneous and more passionate reaction right now. Today, social media has created a fashionable impulse for real-time reactions between the spokesperson and the listener. Implementation in offline situations feeds the necessity. In a culture dominated by the instant feedback loop of retweets, likes, and hearts, the snap (and by “snap, we say brushing the thumb and middle finger against one another to create a bright sound) is more often used than the calm signal of approval or appreciation in conferences. University audiences, poetic slams and even coffee tables. But that`s not the only way to use applause as a weapon.

The other possibility is to use it as a method to cover a voice with which you disagree, which is usually used when a time limit is related to its speaking time.. . . .