3 ms·

When confronted with disagreement, claiming your assertion seems to be "Something you can't say" is incredibly weak. The article does not address any of the co

When confronted with disagreement, claiming your assertion seems to be "Something you can't say" is incredibly weak. The article does not address any of the counterarguments raised in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2377109 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2377109, but merely restates the assertion. It would be "something you can't say" if all the counterarguments were grasping at straws, showing that people are unwilling or incapable of understanding or accepting the assertion. It's the same argument every crackpot invokes to explain disagreement. It is the very last line of defense that everyone can invoke, independent of what the other has argued. It's basically equivalent to "I'm right; you just don't understand". But the article hasn't even tried to refute any of the counterarguments and is in no position to make such claims.

philwelch 16y ago
The difference between merely unpopular and What You Can't Say is how people respond to it. Merely unpopular views are responded to with thoughtful, rational rebuttal. What You Can't Say is responded to with moral outrage, dismissal, and similar responses. Someone who's merely wrong can be corrected with good argument taken in good faith--someone who's broached a taboo is beyond simple argument and faces opposition on a social than a rhetorical level.
- Joeri 16y ago
  The discussion also tends to be steered away from the taboo, towards nitpicking. The basic argument here is that ipv6 is less desirable than a series of hacks on top of ipv4, but very few people were arguing that. Instead they refused to even admit that possibility and focused on refuting individual elements of the argument. Every single argument of the article could be refuted, and still the basic tenet could be correct. I've read through the discussion and i still don't know whether ipv6 is a good or bad idea. Anyway, practicality always wins. If the ipv6 proponents can't make the transition succeed soon enough, hacks+ipv4 will win by virtue of being the only practical solution _right now_.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    The basic argument that most people responded to was the claim that the ipv6 transition was practically impossible. The central point of the counterarguments is that since djb's article, a lot has changed and there now actually are sensible transition plans. Even djb has acknowledged that fact. The remainder of the arguments were mostly about taste. He accepts NAT; many others argue that NAT is horrible and he ignores those arguments based on straw men (an edit in the original article) like: (Update 2011/04/02: A lot of people have criticized this article by talking about how nasty it is to require NAT everywhere. If we had too much NAT, the whole world would fall apart, [..] Moreover, his arguments included technical errors that limit their applicability. All in all he was simply far from convincing. Getting into a discussion where you defend the virtues of NAT is not saying something "you can't say". It saying something unpopular that needs good arguments, because there are good reasons it's unpopular.
bostonvaulter2 16y ago
I'm glad that he brough up "What you can't say" because I've never read that particular Paul Graham essay.

philwelch 16y ago

The difference between merely unpopular and What You Can't Say is how people respond to it. Merely unpopular views are responded to with thoughtful, rational rebuttal. What You Can't Say is responded to with moral outrage, dismissal, and similar responses. Someone who's merely wrong can be corrected with good argument taken in good faith--someone who's broached a taboo is beyond simple argument and faces opposition on a social than a rhetorical level.

Joeri 16y ago
The discussion also tends to be steered away from the taboo, towards nitpicking. The basic argument here is that ipv6 is less desirable than a series of hacks on top of ipv4, but very few people were arguing that. Instead they refused to even admit that possibility and focused on refuting individual elements of the argument. Every single argument of the article could be refuted, and still the basic tenet could be correct. I've read through the discussion and i still don't know whether ipv6 is a good or bad idea. Anyway, practicality always wins. If the ipv6 proponents can't make the transition succeed soon enough, hacks+ipv4 will win by virtue of being the only practical solution _right now_.
- Confusion 16y ago
  The basic argument that most people responded to was the claim that the ipv6 transition was practically impossible. The central point of the counterarguments is that since djb's article, a lot has changed and there now actually are sensible transition plans. Even djb has acknowledged that fact. The remainder of the arguments were mostly about taste. He accepts NAT; many others argue that NAT is horrible and he ignores those arguments based on straw men (an edit in the original article) like: (Update 2011/04/02: A lot of people have criticized this article by talking about how nasty it is to require NAT everywhere. If we had too much NAT, the whole world would fall apart, [..] Moreover, his arguments included technical errors that limit their applicability. All in all he was simply far from convincing. Getting into a discussion where you defend the virtues of NAT is not saying something "you can't say". It saying something unpopular that needs good arguments, because there are good reasons it's unpopular.

bostonvaulter2 16y ago

I'm glad that he brough up "What you can't say" because I've never read that particular Paul Graham essay.