There are plenty of other online forums for complaining about the character of people in politics.
You shouldn't have any trouble finding those explanations, which link to other explanations going back many years, that fully explain how we approach moderating all of this. Here are a couple of fresh starting points:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978389
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42911011
If you read those and follow the links there, and still have a question I haven't answered, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
If you don't have a question, but disagree with how we do it, I respect that, and I respect that quite a few other users share that feeling. But that's not enough to change fundamental moderation principles—for that, I'd need to see a convincing argument proposing better principles. This is certainly possible and would be quite interesting. First, though, anyone who wants to make such a proposal needs to understand what the existing principles are, and what the mandate of the site is. Otherwise we're just talking past each other.
Could you please stop posting off-topic meta threads now?
And yes perhaps, the more you flag and down vote, the less weight they carry.
Otherwise, as we all have noticed, the system is being gamed. The heavy handed HN Police aren't a benefit to the community.
It is more the lack of intervention on what is obviously a concerted effort to suppress discussion (specifically of involvement with the Com) that I find disturbing.