3 ms·
On ranting. From the introduction to the book this article is taken from: What follows is a polemic, or as defenders of the system would have it, a ‘rant’. Pol
by dorpy 8y ago
On ranting. From the introduction to the book this article is taken from:
What follows is a polemic, or as defenders of the system would have it, a ‘rant’. Polemics express negative QUALITIES. It is generally best to ‘let the facts speak for themselves’, but there are some aspects of reality which facts cannot speak for. At various points in this book I refer, for example, to the ‘nightmare’ of the system. To those who do not experience system-life as a nightmare (usually people in nice jobs), it will look as if I am ‘ranting’ — an accusation that I tend to take as a compliment — see https://libcom.org/history/shadow-glorious-though-strange-good-things-come-ranters-libertarian-communism-english-ci https://libcom.org/history/shadow-glorious-though-strange-go...
- hannasanarion 8y agoIn other words, "I have no evidence but I refuse to consider that I could be wrong"
- dorpy 8y ago‘It is best to let the facts speak for themselves.’ Where evidence can be used, use it; where evidence cannot be used, we must use something else.
- hannasanarion 8y agoAnd what you use is logical deduction from other facts, not non-sequitur allegory and baseless assertion