The point of the post is to be about ideas. Alice is only there as a framework for presenting the post’s ideas.
If Alice is expressing the ideas rudely, that’s just a deficiency in how the post presents them. Saying “I’d ignore Alice because she’s rude” is missing the point; it’s as if the post had Alice be an angel and you replied “I’d ignore Alice because angels don’t exist”.
The proper reaction is “the post is flawed in that it attributes the ideas to a rude character, but in order to engage with the thesis of the post I should ignore this flaw and address the ideas anyway”.
In this case, the ideas seem to be linked quite closely with the behavior of the ‘Alice’ character, so attempting to reply to a hypothetical alternate version of the post where the ideas are (somehow) the same but Alice is very polite… seems strange and unproductive. (For one thing, if Alice were polite, the whole conversation wouldn’t happen.)
I think you lack imagination if you think that Alice can’t express those ideas without being rude. For instance, “Alice” and “Bob” could be a metaphor for conflicting impulses and motives inside your own head. Trying to decide between Alice-type ideas and Bob-type ideas doesn’t mean that you’re being rude to yourself.
I think you lack imagination if you think that Alice can’t express those ideas without being rude.
Yep, could be. Show me a rewritten version of this dialogue which supports your suggestion, and we’ll talk. I think it would be different in instructive ways (not just incidental ones).
Thinking to yourself about the ideas expressed in the post by Alice would not mean you are being rude to yourself.
Well, perhaps “being rude to yourself” is an odd way of putting it, but something like this is precisely why I wouldn’t think these things to myself. I have no particular interest in conjuring a mental Insanity Wolf!
The point of the post is to be about ideas. Alice is only there as a framework for presenting the post’s ideas.
If Alice is expressing the ideas rudely, that’s just a deficiency in how the post presents them. Saying “I’d ignore Alice because she’s rude” is missing the point; it’s as if the post had Alice be an angel and you replied “I’d ignore Alice because angels don’t exist”.
The proper reaction is “the post is flawed in that it attributes the ideas to a rude character, but in order to engage with the thesis of the post I should ignore this flaw and address the ideas anyway”.
In this case, the ideas seem to be linked quite closely with the behavior of the ‘Alice’ character, so attempting to reply to a hypothetical alternate version of the post where the ideas are (somehow) the same but Alice is very polite… seems strange and unproductive. (For one thing, if Alice were polite, the whole conversation wouldn’t happen.)
I think you lack imagination if you think that Alice can’t express those ideas without being rude. For instance, “Alice” and “Bob” could be a metaphor for conflicting impulses and motives inside your own head. Trying to decide between Alice-type ideas and Bob-type ideas doesn’t mean that you’re being rude to yourself.
Yep, could be. Show me a rewritten version of this dialogue which supports your suggestion, and we’ll talk. I think it would be different in instructive ways (not just incidental ones).
Well, perhaps “being rude to yourself” is an odd way of putting it, but something like this is precisely why I wouldn’t think these things to myself. I have no particular interest in conjuring a mental Insanity Wolf!
“Should I do (list of things said by Alice in the post)? Or should I do (list of things said by Bob in the original post)?”