Okay I'll pretend to give a benefit of the doubt here.. what's the possible upside or positives for doing this? I'm having a very hard time conceiving of them.
According to Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, this will "better safeguard the exercise of due process rights of both subject and witness". Have not seen this explained.
The best I understood from it is that they were not happy at releasing reports of someone who was ultimately cleared.
And I can kinda see their POV on that. If they are cleared they are cleared, releasing the full report after that seems intrusive and implies that they did something wrong even if cleared (which may be true, but if that's the case then don't clear them).
First of all, it looks like it's not a done deal quite yet:
>The full House is scheduled to vote on Tuesday on the rules, which would last for two years, until the next congressional elections.
That said, I'm absolutely baffled about how anyone can support the Republican Party these days. I'm not talking about tax policy or spending or surveillance or any of the big issues -- I disagree with their positions in many cases, but I can understand them.
What I can't understand is the bizarre, nightmarish attacks on what seems to be... well, democracy. Regardless of how you feel about abortion or foreign policy or the social safety net, there's a party that:
* Advocated the invalidation of big chunks of the Voting Rights Act, then passed voter suppression efforts (North Carolina, among several others) so brazenly targeted at minorities that even red-state courts stepped in to stop them.
* Pushed gerrymandering to an almost comical conclusion in states like Wisconsin, where legislators aren't even pretending to have a reason for doing it other than to disenfranchise Democrats. They're adamant enough that it's probably going to end up in the Supreme Court.[0]
* Holds an unannounced vote, with no debate, by secret ballot, on a day federal offices are closed, to gut the congressional office assigned to hold them accountable for corrupt behavior. If you didn't read the linked story, the move basically puts the House Ethics Committee in charge of the investigations, which means Congress is voting to put itself in charge of monitoring the ethics of... Congress.
Republicans are whining about how the current system can be abusive, so their answer is to give a House committee more power over the process? The same House that spent years investigating Hillary Clinton over anything they could think of, insisting it had nothing to do with her running for president? The same House that then dropped all the investigations immediately after the election? More importantly than that, the same House that has had more than a dozen[1] members convicted of federal crimes since 2000?
This whole thing is already waaay into "inappropriate rant" territory, but I'm so, so saddened by these developments. This isn't a question of political opinions coming into conflict, like with health care or climate policy or banking regulation. This is breaking the system.
In 2012, Democrats won 1.2% more votes nationwide for House seats, but the GOP had a 234-201 majority in DC. [Edited to correct an error in my prior statement.] [0]
Also, don't forget the other ways they've seriously undermined elections: The Republicans on the Supreme Court removing the barrier to unlimited, anonymous election spending. Republicans on the Federal Election Commission blocking almost all enforcement action. Republicans in Congress threatening, intimidating, and investigating the IRS into ceasing campaign finance enforcement actions
----
I don't mean this in a partisan way; I embrace some conservative ideas and wish the Republican Party provided excellent governance, great ideas and policy, and the best possible choice for voters. However, that is not the case right now. The hypothesis that seems to predict the Republican's behavior to me (and which I invite others to test and challenge) is that it is a scorched earth ideological war against anything 'liberal', good or bad.
* By "ideological", I mean these are the definition of dogmatic, extremist idealogues: Truth, facts, and human welfare are not the tests of statements or policy, ideology is; consider climate change, as an example, or all the extremist, clearly false statements by Republican candidates, including the President-elect - acceptable because they fit ideology, not truth or good policy. In fact, I believe any discussion of issues is a distraction from the ideological steps they will pursue regardless.
* By "scorched earth", I mean regardless of the harm it does to the country and world - burn down the institutions, economies, and ruin the people - again, think of climate change.
I think it's so extreme a problem that people naturally doubt it can be that bad, but I think it is: The current Republican Party, since 2001, is a serious threat the U.S. and world. The Democrats are complicit by their passivity - a dereliction of duty, even cowardice - which has allowed this behavior to become acceptable, even a norm.
----
Consider, off the top of my head, real-world examples of the scorched earth ideological campaign:
* Climate change: Rejected because it's a 'liberal' idea
* The embrace and encouragement of torture, war, and violence.
* Undermining elections, as described above.
* The criminalization of opposition politics, with their voters accused of fraud, and their leaders impeached (Clinton), his legal legitimacy questioned (Obama), or investigated endlessly and threatened with imprisonment (Clinton), and the widespread demonization of them.
* Undermining the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, regardless of the damage, through record filibusters and obstructionism: As examples, shutting down the government multiple times; seriously threatening bankruptcy of the U.S. government and causing its credit rating to be reduced; refusing to vote on a Supreme Court nomination for the first time, leaving the judiciary unable to act in some cases; nominating a clearly unqualified candidate for President who may even be cooperating with a foreign enemy.
* Damaging the news media and the cause of an informed public with an endless flood of ideological propaganda campaigns.
Do you know how much America hate poor people, women, and minorites? Of course they will vote for the party that more openly enables their hate. Like, they really hate them. And decades of worship of capital ensures that progress will be slow to come. Both parties are complicit in this, but one is definitely less afraid of being open about it.
Do you know how much Americans hate poor people, women, and minorites?
Please do not generalize over an entire population like this. There's overwhelming evidence that the country is not by any means in agreement on a great many issues. Discussions on HN itself show this to be true.
I'm sorry this struck a chord with you and made you feel like you had to declare "not all Americans." That's great that you feel that way and don't associate with those aspects of American culture, but your individual actions and feelings do not negate the actions of America as a whole. The individual is nothing and their atonement does not rectify the system they are under. Loop me back when the brock turners and racist cops are behind bars or we don't have an admitted sexual predator and xenophobe leading us. Or even when we have functioning social services or a safety net for anyone but the 1%.
I believe you that you the individual are not what I said about America, but America as a whole still has a lot of work to do. And as we live here, we all embody a part of that America that isn't so wholesome and kind, and we always will until it changes.
Why should I do anything? As you say, "the individual is nothing."
In all seriousness, by persisting in statements like this you alienate a lot of people who might otherwise sympathize with you on many issues that are important to you. I hate being flip as I am in my first line, but tarring everyone with the same broad brush and saying their individual actions mean nothing if the state isn't perfect is unfair and denigrates anything good people might be doing. That there is still injustice does not mean that people are not working to make things better, both in government and out.
Hasn't stopped me or you from doing anything. But being upset about this is like being upset and saying "not all men" or "not all white people." It doesn't matter that you don't associate with the nasty parts of how somebody is describing a unit as one. Of course it's going to be overly simplistic and broad and miss a lot of the details. But complaining that you think it is unfair to do so because you're part of that group and aren't what is being critiqued just makes it sound like you want to ignore the bigger issues to protect your ego because part of you is in the group being discussed.
This is about groups of power or privilege, nobody is in danger or under threat because they perpetuate these socially regressive parts of America, so we have to discuss America as its worst elements, even if we ourselves don't think we contribute to them.
Which brings us back to the original comment you took objection too. Why do Americans keep voting for a party that is hostile to marginalized groups? Because the America we live in is okay with this. And, as Americans, it is all of our responsibility to at least accept that this is country we currently live under. Agree with it or not, America's culture of racism, misogyny, and profiteering at the expense of others comes from Americans. You might think you're better than that (and you're probably right), but as a whole Americans have decided that their country is not.
makes it sound like you want to ignore the bigger issues to protect your ego because part of you is in the group being discussed.
One of the biggest issues I see today is people not recognizing common ground and the importance of working together, and increasing polarization, which is directly why I've engaged with you exactly on these terms. I know people are not going to agree with me on every point, nor can I expect them to do so. Thinking that I can convince people to wholesale change their opinions and values is likewise folly, and I must keep myself open to the opportunity to change my own if I expect others to change theirs. The alternative, to engage in the tyranny of democracy, is something that should be actively worked against, regardless of who is in power.
Why do Americans keep voting for a party that is hostile to marginalized groups? Because the America we live in is okay with this.
Did you vote in the US presidential election? If not, please imagine yourself to have done so for the sake of argument. Did you agree with every value espoused by one of the candidates? I think it's highly unlikely. For those you did agree with, do they hold the same priority for them as for you? Would they make every decision exactly how you would have them do? I very much doubt that as well.
The candidates of the two major parties had record low favorability ratings.[0] If you want to say something about Americans, it's that they didn't really like whoever was going to be elected. Assuming they subscribe to everything represented by their elected officials, even if they did vote for them, does them a disservice.
People may share some of your values, values that are important to you. They may prioritize them different than you do, and some of their values that you do not share may be prioritized above them. I would want to work with all of the people that agree with me on a particular one. If I chose language that continues to alienate people, it will do little to nothing to help us find the common ground and work towards common goals.
If I keep all of my values bundled together, I'm very unlikely to make progress on any of them. I need to be able to talk about them individually, just as I am here, discussing my views on getting people to work together, with you. I'm separating this from the rest of my individual values (even though I'd like to think they're related, I know human psychology well enough to know that they are not at all likely to be internally consistent across them all), of which I'm sure we share at least a few. Arguing that you should accept this one because you and I share these others actively works against the point I'm trying to make, which is why I strive to avoid including any particular issue in my discussion.
I want things to change, and the thing I want to change the most is the idea that people can't work together even if they don't agree on every issue. I don't see how we can make progress on any issue any other civil way.
I'm frustrated in that I haven't been able to phrase my comments in a more amiable manner, and I fear I've let things go further than I'd otherwise like. For this I apologize, and will finish with this thread. I wish you the best and hope you have a productive day.
> you alienate a lot of people who might otherwise sympathize with you
shading the truth might win people over but only those who are willing to turn their minds off because they were offended, only those more interested in changes that will let them go back to sitting right in their feelings. you'll see this most evidently on the web where a person feels there's work to be done only so long as they feel they need to correct someone, as soon as everyone feels the record has been set straight it goes right back to the kind of complacency that generates the kinds of statements you dislike so much. the same people who talk about "bleeding heart" "libtards" hung up on their feelings are the same emotionally inept lot that don't see how their own feelings for a flag gets in the way of truth; that a nation is not a monolith, that we are both wonderful and terrible, and that no change can come from a state of denial. "We're broken" is the same as "We're not perfect" but denial clings to the phrasing that lets us believe perfection is within reach.
Why do you post such non-substantiated arguments on HN? His "admission" of sexual assault was in fact alpha-male-y locker room talk, and he's married to a foreigner, so your accusation of "xenophobia" sounds a bit hollow...
I'm going to give to the benefit of the doubt and not assume you are intentionally being misogynistic, so here's some light reading to help clear up why what you said perpetuates rape culture and isn't okay.
I disagree. I stand firmly on the side of freedom of speech and judging people on their actions, not words. If anything, equating words with rape is what normalizes and trivializes rape!
Edit: also, this moralizing that locker room talk perpetuates "rape culture" (I even dispute its existence in the West!) sounds eerily similar to the "shooting games encourage crime" panic we had a few years ago. Unless you have data to back it up, I dismiss this whole argument as made-up.
If you actually read those articles and still believe that, I want you to know that I legitimately find you frightening. This is about a person in a position of authority making a statement that normalizes sexual assault. This isn't video games. There are real victims and a culture that perpetuates this. He didn't grope somebody personally and get away with it, he did it in real life and bragged about it. I don't know how to break this down any further and that you tried to flip this into me normalizing rape culture is disgusting. Maybe you need to learn what rape culture is? Maybe it's time to stop pretending that anti-feminism isn't misogynistic. I hope I'm never near you in the real world because your words indicate a lack of care about actions to my body.
> I stand firmly on the side of freedom of speech and judging people on their actions, not words. If anything, equating words with rape is what normalizes and trivializes rape!
I think we're debating two different things: I don't think it should be illegal to brag about (real or imagined) assault, so we probably agree in that regard. However, words, especially from the powerful, affect how we perceive the actions of others, which is a big deal. If Trump approvingly says says that he can "grab 'em by the pussy," that's another voice making sexual assault sound like something people just do, and isn't a big deal. I don't really know what "locker room talk" even is, but when famous people happily tell stories of sexual assault, how could that not contribute to the idea that it isn't a grave offense?
> Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority leader, spoke out during the meeting to oppose the measure, aides said on Monday night.
Let's not take this at face value. It's an easy way for them to keep their cover as serious people and blame the insurgents.
> Now, here's the good part, as it was with the DeLay Rule, the vote is secret. Why? Because this is a caucus vote, i.e., not an actual congressional vote. Let me digress for a moment and explain just one more bit of detail. With each new Congress the majority puts together a bundle of rules that will govern how the House works during that Congress. Mostly this just puts the old rules back in place. But there are always a few changes. All those rules get bundled into one bill and it's the first thing or one of the first to get voted on. That bill gets approved on a party line vote, just like the Speaker gets elected. If the caucus votes for it, it's a sure thing. So even though this was just a secret caucus vote, in effect it is binding as law since all Republicans will vote for it in the official vote.
Why was this flagged/dead? I'm not sure how the voting system works here, and saying "it's political/not relevant to HN" is not a good reason, considering the anti immigration article on the front page from theamericanconservative.com
It currently does not have a '[flagged]' tag from what I see, though user voting may have changed in the time between the posting of your comment and mine. What gives you the impression that it's flagged?
As to why it was flagged, the submission has no direct tech link, and while it's politically relevant and of interest to some, it wouldn't surprise me that some users have flagged it, seeing it unlikely to produce a constructive discussion while producing a lot of flames and uncivil behavior.
As to why some posts are flagged, and some to the point of '[flagged][dead]', from as much as I've witnessed it's not all that dissimilar to why some posts or comments get up-voted and others not. Certain occurrences of flagging will catch our eye based on our own perspectives.
I haven't been convinced strongly enough that there's anything nefarious afoot to warrant diving into looking at the post statistics (though I do think it would be interesting to do so). From your initial comment I might assume that you think this might be the case. If so, I encourage you to do such a study yourself. The HN APIs will likely give you enough data to provide enough data to dig into it.
36 comments
[ 7.5 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadThe best I understood from it is that they were not happy at releasing reports of someone who was ultimately cleared.
And I can kinda see their POV on that. If they are cleared they are cleared, releasing the full report after that seems intrusive and implies that they did something wrong even if cleared (which may be true, but if that's the case then don't clear them).
Releasing reports of government activity and investigations into elected officials seems perfectly reasonable to me. Government should be transparent.
>The full House is scheduled to vote on Tuesday on the rules, which would last for two years, until the next congressional elections.
That said, I'm absolutely baffled about how anyone can support the Republican Party these days. I'm not talking about tax policy or spending or surveillance or any of the big issues -- I disagree with their positions in many cases, but I can understand them.
What I can't understand is the bizarre, nightmarish attacks on what seems to be... well, democracy. Regardless of how you feel about abortion or foreign policy or the social safety net, there's a party that:
* Advocated the invalidation of big chunks of the Voting Rights Act, then passed voter suppression efforts (North Carolina, among several others) so brazenly targeted at minorities that even red-state courts stepped in to stop them.
* Pushed gerrymandering to an almost comical conclusion in states like Wisconsin, where legislators aren't even pretending to have a reason for doing it other than to disenfranchise Democrats. They're adamant enough that it's probably going to end up in the Supreme Court.[0]
* Holds an unannounced vote, with no debate, by secret ballot, on a day federal offices are closed, to gut the congressional office assigned to hold them accountable for corrupt behavior. If you didn't read the linked story, the move basically puts the House Ethics Committee in charge of the investigations, which means Congress is voting to put itself in charge of monitoring the ethics of... Congress.
Republicans are whining about how the current system can be abusive, so their answer is to give a House committee more power over the process? The same House that spent years investigating Hillary Clinton over anything they could think of, insisting it had nothing to do with her running for president? The same House that then dropped all the investigations immediately after the election? More importantly than that, the same House that has had more than a dozen[1] members convicted of federal crimes since 2000?
This whole thing is already waaay into "inappropriate rant" territory, but I'm so, so saddened by these developments. This isn't a question of political opinions coming into conflict, like with health care or climate policy or banking regulation. This is breaking the system.
0 - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/wisconsin-redistricting...
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_polit...
In 2012, Democrats won 1.2% more votes nationwide for House seats, but the GOP had a 234-201 majority in DC. [Edited to correct an error in my prior statement.] [0]
Also, don't forget the other ways they've seriously undermined elections: The Republicans on the Supreme Court removing the barrier to unlimited, anonymous election spending. Republicans on the Federal Election Commission blocking almost all enforcement action. Republicans in Congress threatening, intimidating, and investigating the IRS into ceasing campaign finance enforcement actions
----
I don't mean this in a partisan way; I embrace some conservative ideas and wish the Republican Party provided excellent governance, great ideas and policy, and the best possible choice for voters. However, that is not the case right now. The hypothesis that seems to predict the Republican's behavior to me (and which I invite others to test and challenge) is that it is a scorched earth ideological war against anything 'liberal', good or bad.
* By "ideological", I mean these are the definition of dogmatic, extremist idealogues: Truth, facts, and human welfare are not the tests of statements or policy, ideology is; consider climate change, as an example, or all the extremist, clearly false statements by Republican candidates, including the President-elect - acceptable because they fit ideology, not truth or good policy. In fact, I believe any discussion of issues is a distraction from the ideological steps they will pursue regardless.
* By "scorched earth", I mean regardless of the harm it does to the country and world - burn down the institutions, economies, and ruin the people - again, think of climate change.
I think it's so extreme a problem that people naturally doubt it can be that bad, but I think it is: The current Republican Party, since 2001, is a serious threat the U.S. and world. The Democrats are complicit by their passivity - a dereliction of duty, even cowardice - which has allowed this behavior to become acceptable, even a norm.
----
Consider, off the top of my head, real-world examples of the scorched earth ideological campaign:
* Climate change: Rejected because it's a 'liberal' idea
* The embrace and encouragement of torture, war, and violence.
* Undermining elections, as described above.
* The criminalization of opposition politics, with their voters accused of fraud, and their leaders impeached (Clinton), his legal legitimacy questioned (Obama), or investigated endlessly and threatened with imprisonment (Clinton), and the widespread demonization of them.
* Undermining the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, regardless of the damage, through record filibusters and obstructionism: As examples, shutting down the government multiple times; seriously threatening bankruptcy of the U.S. government and causing its credit rating to be reduced; refusing to vote on a Supreme Court nomination for the first time, leaving the judiciary unable to act in some cases; nominating a clearly unqualified candidate for President who may even be cooperating with a foreign enemy.
* Damaging the news media and the cause of an informed public with an endless flood of ideological propaganda campaigns.
----
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represe...
Please do not generalize over an entire population like this. There's overwhelming evidence that the country is not by any means in agreement on a great many issues. Discussions on HN itself show this to be true.
I believe you that you the individual are not what I said about America, but America as a whole still has a lot of work to do. And as we live here, we all embody a part of that America that isn't so wholesome and kind, and we always will until it changes.
In all seriousness, by persisting in statements like this you alienate a lot of people who might otherwise sympathize with you on many issues that are important to you. I hate being flip as I am in my first line, but tarring everyone with the same broad brush and saying their individual actions mean nothing if the state isn't perfect is unfair and denigrates anything good people might be doing. That there is still injustice does not mean that people are not working to make things better, both in government and out.
This is about groups of power or privilege, nobody is in danger or under threat because they perpetuate these socially regressive parts of America, so we have to discuss America as its worst elements, even if we ourselves don't think we contribute to them.
Which brings us back to the original comment you took objection too. Why do Americans keep voting for a party that is hostile to marginalized groups? Because the America we live in is okay with this. And, as Americans, it is all of our responsibility to at least accept that this is country we currently live under. Agree with it or not, America's culture of racism, misogyny, and profiteering at the expense of others comes from Americans. You might think you're better than that (and you're probably right), but as a whole Americans have decided that their country is not.
One of the biggest issues I see today is people not recognizing common ground and the importance of working together, and increasing polarization, which is directly why I've engaged with you exactly on these terms. I know people are not going to agree with me on every point, nor can I expect them to do so. Thinking that I can convince people to wholesale change their opinions and values is likewise folly, and I must keep myself open to the opportunity to change my own if I expect others to change theirs. The alternative, to engage in the tyranny of democracy, is something that should be actively worked against, regardless of who is in power.
Why do Americans keep voting for a party that is hostile to marginalized groups? Because the America we live in is okay with this.
Did you vote in the US presidential election? If not, please imagine yourself to have done so for the sake of argument. Did you agree with every value espoused by one of the candidates? I think it's highly unlikely. For those you did agree with, do they hold the same priority for them as for you? Would they make every decision exactly how you would have them do? I very much doubt that as well.
The candidates of the two major parties had record low favorability ratings.[0] If you want to say something about Americans, it's that they didn't really like whoever was going to be elected. Assuming they subscribe to everything represented by their elected officials, even if they did vote for them, does them a disservice.
[0]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-b...
People may share some of your values, values that are important to you. They may prioritize them different than you do, and some of their values that you do not share may be prioritized above them. I would want to work with all of the people that agree with me on a particular one. If I chose language that continues to alienate people, it will do little to nothing to help us find the common ground and work towards common goals.
If I keep all of my values bundled together, I'm very unlikely to make progress on any of them. I need to be able to talk about them individually, just as I am here, discussing my views on getting people to work together, with you. I'm separating this from the rest of my individual values (even though I'd like to think they're related, I know human psychology well enough to know that they are not at all likely to be internally consistent across them all), of which I'm sure we share at least a few. Arguing that you should accept this one because you and I share these others actively works against the point I'm trying to make, which is why I strive to avoid including any particular issue in my discussion.
I want things to change, and the thing I want to change the most is the idea that people can't work together even if they don't agree on every issue. I don't see how we can make progress on any issue any other civil way.
I'm frustrated in that I haven't been able to phrase my comments in a more amiable manner, and I fear I've let things go further than I'd otherwise like. For this I apologize, and will finish with this thread. I wish you the best and hope you have a productive day.
shading the truth might win people over but only those who are willing to turn their minds off because they were offended, only those more interested in changes that will let them go back to sitting right in their feelings. you'll see this most evidently on the web where a person feels there's work to be done only so long as they feel they need to correct someone, as soon as everyone feels the record has been set straight it goes right back to the kind of complacency that generates the kinds of statements you dislike so much. the same people who talk about "bleeding heart" "libtards" hung up on their feelings are the same emotionally inept lot that don't see how their own feelings for a flag gets in the way of truth; that a nation is not a monolith, that we are both wonderful and terrible, and that no change can come from a state of denial. "We're broken" is the same as "We're not perfect" but denial clings to the phrasing that lets us believe perfection is within reach.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/locker...
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-locker-room-talk...
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/10/13/what-did-don...?
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/perpetuating-rape-culture-n...
Edit: also, this moralizing that locker room talk perpetuates "rape culture" (I even dispute its existence in the West!) sounds eerily similar to the "shooting games encourage crime" panic we had a few years ago. Unless you have data to back it up, I dismiss this whole argument as made-up.
I'm out.
I think we're debating two different things: I don't think it should be illegal to brag about (real or imagined) assault, so we probably agree in that regard. However, words, especially from the powerful, affect how we perceive the actions of others, which is a big deal. If Trump approvingly says says that he can "grab 'em by the pussy," that's another voice making sexual assault sound like something people just do, and isn't a big deal. I don't really know what "locker room talk" even is, but when famous people happily tell stories of sexual assault, how could that not contribute to the idea that it isn't a grave offense?
[1]: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/house-republicans-gut-...
Let's not take this at face value. It's an easy way for them to keep their cover as serious people and blame the insurgents.
> Now, here's the good part, as it was with the DeLay Rule, the vote is secret. Why? Because this is a caucus vote, i.e., not an actual congressional vote. Let me digress for a moment and explain just one more bit of detail. With each new Congress the majority puts together a bundle of rules that will govern how the House works during that Congress. Mostly this just puts the old rules back in place. But there are always a few changes. All those rules get bundled into one bill and it's the first thing or one of the first to get voted on. That bill gets approved on a party line vote, just like the Speaker gets elected. If the caucus votes for it, it's a sure thing. So even though this was just a secret caucus vote, in effect it is binding as law since all Republicans will vote for it in the official vote.
As to why some posts are flagged, and some to the point of '[flagged][dead]', from as much as I've witnessed it's not all that dissimilar to why some posts or comments get up-voted and others not. Certain occurrences of flagging will catch our eye based on our own perspectives.
I haven't been convinced strongly enough that there's anything nefarious afoot to warrant diving into looking at the post statistics (though I do think it would be interesting to do so). From your initial comment I might assume that you think this might be the case. If so, I encourage you to do such a study yourself. The HN APIs will likely give you enough data to provide enough data to dig into it.
- https://github.com/HackerNews/API
- https://hn.algolia.com/api