AI bot trolls politicians with how much time they're looking at phones

As activists, we can obtain substantial press coverage even without an advertising budget, by carrying out well-thought-out direct actions and acts of civil disobedience, and we can offer direct resistance (for instance, when we build tree houses to occupy forests which are on the clearing list of governments or the fossil fuel industry, like we successfully did with the Hambach Forest in Germany).

Abstaining from participating in parliament when you're elected or participating in unconstructive ways (i.e. by being disruptive etc.) is a legitimate behaviour. As long as you're transparent about your intentions to behave so to your voters, removing such MPs without an election would be authoritarian.

If he/she is not transparent about this and this is/becomes a widespread problem it's preferable to decrease the duration of office terms or allow recall elections instead of instituting arbitrary rules (which will have to be approved by the ruling party/coalition and therefore will likely be designed in such a would which would favour them over opposition parties).

I think the answer to this is pretty obvious: if you are touching tiny issues with chamber procedure and etiquette but have this problem, perhaps start with this and return to dress code and cell phones once the chamber is functioning at all. Again: the idea with “no phones” completely rests on the idea that there is a minimum of dead time in the chamber. If that can’t be arranged then that’s the issue to address.

> a form of a public ritual which would lend additional weight and gravity to decisions made the parliament

It’s this. And it’s the same reason people wear suits in a courtroom. It’s because showing that something is serious has a point. Being superficial doesn’t mean pointless.

Sure, wear dirty hiking boots to the ballet.

Snort and fart thru the sermon.

Talk loudly in the phone riding crowded publuc transit.

Every day is halloween and you need to unambiguously alert all other participants the esteem you hold for them, or not. So choose your costume wisely.

You fail basic etiquette.

Idk whether telling here how to achieve this is good idea

If you ask me, I'm calling a spade a spade, and Carney is saying a dog turd is cake. But I think its great you engage in the conversation - we can then establish what each of us means by whatever term, and proceed. You will not get any such satisfaction from Carney and his ilk.

I'm providing more concrete terms for others to potentially investigate, instead of the evocative, idealistic ideas we are provided.

We are told 'progress', 'society', 'justice' etc - these mean whatever you like. But who is stating them? What do they mean by them?

What is justice to person who represents the governance structure? What is progress to someone who heads up a corporation?

These are terms we all use, but the idea behind them means exactly the opposite by those who govern us, to what we commonly understand.

Ultimately, its for us all as individuals to understand what those terms (and other) mean to us, and to then do the research to see if that is the usage that those who govern us also have. That is the work for any individual to do.

Of course, no one checks what is meant - no one. Yet it is all out there. The mistake we make is to assume we are on the same page.