For better or for worse, if something is on topic, it's on topic whether it has been discussed before or not. For example, there are several separate posts about FB, PR, and Google, with the same arguments being repeated. There is no reason to flag any of the stories or the discussions just because you've read them before and you are no longer interested. Skip the post, or skip the comments, you have the power to ignore things, use it.

There is a deeper issue here around whether threads should be merged is some manner. So far, requests for this feature have not been heeded. Until there is a merge threads feature, each post on the subject is a brand new canvas.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

This is covered on TV news, incites political debate, and is exactly the same phenomenon that's been rehashed to death.

You don't have to read the comments or argue about nuclear power to be interested.

You could even go so far as to say you don't even have to be a hacker to be interested...

And at that point you should flag the article for being off topic.

I'm glad someone is pointing out how polarizing this topic is. I'm glad someone is pointing out that people are shouting each other.

People speculate and they opine and they rant. That the highest voted post provides a third point of view ("Let's recall that we've already discussed this numerous times") is a relief.

Also, if you want to attack a viewpoint, don't attack its tone, attack its argument.

If a news article is allowed to come out when "nothing has changed in Japan", and affect public opinion, I think we're allowed to deliberate it to do the same.