<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>joelgrus</author><text>&lt;i&gt;Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk  refrain from posting out of fear of career repercussion?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;No and yes. I have been pretty vocal about it on Twitter:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;joelgrus&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;606474432509394944&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;joelgrus&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;606474432509394944&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;joelgrus&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;606673594198794240&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;joelgrus&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;606673594198794240&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;but I&amp;#x27;ve also been sitting on a 75%-written blog post that I&amp;#x27;m hesitant to actually post.&lt;p&gt;Not because of &lt;i&gt;career&lt;/i&gt; repercussions (I have never had an employer who really gave a shit what I write about in my spare time) but because of &lt;i&gt;conference&lt;/i&gt; repercussions.&lt;p&gt;I am promoting a book, and to that end I am scheduled to speak at various conferences and meetups. And I worry that the mob would somehow try to get &lt;i&gt;me&lt;/i&gt; uninvited. It&amp;#x27;s not like there&amp;#x27;s an actual policy that Yarvin violated that I can be confident I&amp;#x27;m on the right side of.&lt;p&gt;So I am torn between my natural inclination to say exactly what I think, and the more practical takeaway of &amp;quot;don&amp;#x27;t write or have written anything that might anger the mob&amp;quot;.</text><parent_chain><item><author>nkurz</author><text>In case you were wondering what Curtis&amp;#x27;s talk might have been about (and whether it would have held any technical merit) this page has a link to Clark&amp;#x27;s earlier introduction to Urbit: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;popehat.com&amp;#x2F;2013&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-why-urbit-matters&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;popehat.com&amp;#x2F;2013&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;Exit, voice, and loyalty&amp;quot; terminology might seem odd if you don&amp;#x27;t know it&amp;#x27;s origins.  It&amp;#x27;s from 1970 book by economist A. O. Hirschman that&amp;#x27;s coming back in popularity: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty&lt;/a&gt;.  Hirschman gives an 1978 intro&amp;#x2F;postscript in his own words here: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;homepages.wmich.edu&amp;#x2F;~plambert&amp;#x2F;comp&amp;#x2F;hirschman.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;homepages.wmich.edu&amp;#x2F;~plambert&amp;#x2F;comp&amp;#x2F;hirschman.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m surprised by apparent predominance of support here on HN for Strangeloop&amp;#x27;s position.   While clearly legal, it&amp;#x27;s strikes me as a terrible precedent to require speakers on technical topics to pass a political litmus test.   I&amp;#x27;d be interested to know the actual direction that the sentiment lies.  Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk (wisely?) refrain from posting out of (legitimate?) fear of career repercussion?  Or am I (comfortable speaking because I&amp;#x27;m largely outside the industry) in the minority?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)</title><url>http://popehat.com/2015/06/10/two-kinds-of-freedom-of-speech-or-strangeloop-vs-curtis-yarvin/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>d9h549f34w6</author><text>I for one support Curtis on this issue, but tend not to post here on the subject except under an alternate username. I do this because I do in fact fear the &amp;quot;social justice&amp;quot; crowd and their ability to mess with people and their careers when they don&amp;#x27;t follow the party line.&lt;p&gt;If I were to hazard a guess, I think I&amp;#x27;m not alone in this and I think you&amp;#x27;re not in a minority (or at least a small one). The recent HN stories seem to get a good number of &amp;quot;silent upvotes&amp;quot; before anyone steps into the fray to add a comment.</text><parent_chain><item><author>nkurz</author><text>In case you were wondering what Curtis&amp;#x27;s talk might have been about (and whether it would have held any technical merit) this page has a link to Clark&amp;#x27;s earlier introduction to Urbit: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;popehat.com&amp;#x2F;2013&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-why-urbit-matters&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;popehat.com&amp;#x2F;2013&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;Exit, voice, and loyalty&amp;quot; terminology might seem odd if you don&amp;#x27;t know it&amp;#x27;s origins.  It&amp;#x27;s from 1970 book by economist A. O. Hirschman that&amp;#x27;s coming back in popularity: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty&lt;/a&gt;.  Hirschman gives an 1978 intro&amp;#x2F;postscript in his own words here: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;homepages.wmich.edu&amp;#x2F;~plambert&amp;#x2F;comp&amp;#x2F;hirschman.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;homepages.wmich.edu&amp;#x2F;~plambert&amp;#x2F;comp&amp;#x2F;hirschman.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m surprised by apparent predominance of support here on HN for Strangeloop&amp;#x27;s position.   While clearly legal, it&amp;#x27;s strikes me as a terrible precedent to require speakers on technical topics to pass a political litmus test.   I&amp;#x27;d be interested to know the actual direction that the sentiment lies.  Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk (wisely?) refrain from posting out of (legitimate?) fear of career repercussion?  Or am I (comfortable speaking because I&amp;#x27;m largely outside the industry) in the minority?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)</title><url>http://popehat.com/2015/06/10/two-kinds-of-freedom-of-speech-or-strangeloop-vs-curtis-yarvin/</url></story>