Stop flagging articles you don't agree with that discuss science. It's not how HN is supposed to work.

According to the HN guidelines, flagging is for spam or off-topic submissions. This is neither.

The circumstances surrounding James Damore's "google memo" are a fairly clear indicator that we have a growing subculture of absolute ideological intolerance, especially in the tech industry.

How many times do we need Rust vs Go vs whatever debates? HN has quite a lot of repetitive discussions, and that's OK. When people get bored they'll stop voting things up.

"I am bored of this" doesn't seem like what the flagging mechanism is for, actually. Or would I be justified in flagging any story about Go because it happens to not be relevant to me and I think there's enough discussion of it already? Seems wrong.

This adds additional arguments to the discussion from a person who has a Ph.D in the area, and is the of the opposite gender of the original author.

I have also seen articles about legal action being taken which was news to me, also being flagged down.

If people weren't interested in responding and discussing, the article would disappear on its own. The fact that people are paying attention means there is more to discuss. It's really not up to you to decide. Flag all you want but that's a terrible metric to use to make your decision.