Most of us probably try not to rant. Like it’s not a good look in any medium. So this essay looks at ranting and how it may be one of the few things not to be normalized. Or at least it is normalized only within certain contexts.
How it begins
When humans first transmitted radio signals, the art of modern ranting was born. We could go back to the orators of ancient Rome or the pre-roman days, but nobody needs to hear all of that. Humans have always depended on interpersonal relationships and politics.
On the other hand, ranting is very impersonal. It’s almost as if the ranter is rejecting the notion of placing too much value on their daily face to face interactions. If my previous statement is true, that has broad ramifications for such a person’s trajectory going forward.
At their very core, a change agent has a deep-seated rejection of their peers, teachers, and institutions. Where nothing anyone does is ever enough, and even winning the war of change doesn’t feel good enough. That’s why every political cycle, we see the same things.
At Face Value
Ranting is a big business now. It’s all over cable news; it’s been in the sports world, and it’s pervasive in politics. More importantly, ranting is so exposed it turns into a guilty pleasure for the masses. They don’t take any of it seriously, but they keep going back for more.
In all honesty, I’m not making a case whether this is good or bad, just that it is. Ranting is how you feed the masses, which inevitably and inherently want to be fed. So the problem then exists, as previously explained. There is a great responsibility in how a good or bad rant can shape minds.
As an illustration, another thing worth looking into is finding out how much room for error there actually is. And that’s not going to be a one size fits all situation. There are different personalities and different styles.
What does it say about civilization when we let an obvious disconnection exist? In essence, we are saying the ranter can sell themselves out for money, and the people being ranted at are willing to eat it up. Then absolve themselves of any role in the charade.
Besides all of that, we use the disconnect to pick and choose who gets fortune and who gets canceled with no rhyme or reason as to why we do so. Therefore we expect absolute consistency whenever we feel like it but literally never offer the same in return.
The point of this essay is not to reject the game, only to play it better. To take a shot at the whole idea of shock type news while also shocking in our own ways. This is a light effort for me. Nevertheless, I feel that sense of responsibility to do better and sell myself out on my own terms.
A deeper look
Perhaps ranting as a phenomenon is a human’s way of finding a natural balance between chaos and order. In that sense, it’s an unsolvable problem on the level of many other paradoxes. So unless a major paradigm shift guides us, we can accurately predict the things mentioned here won’t change.
For one thing, we know that perceptions do change, sometimes very easily. But the universal patterns that exist in nature don’t change. And mass-psychology overrules any other methodology. I encourage anyone to run some numbers and hand me your predictions.
To illustrate, I would gladly explain how I could have figured out everything you did with psychology alone. Also, I’m not saying it’s easy or anything. I’m merely saying it’s better applied to any of the topics talked about.
As a matter of fact, whether you don’t enjoy a good rant or can’t look away from a train wreck, the effect ends up being the same. So both reactions are equally as wasteful. A more logical approach is to be aware of the train, give it the amount of attention it deserves, and nothing more.
By way of example, this argument is perfectly in line with the philosophy of this site. Where we are only asking for a little bit of attention, it’s all a rant or a show; it’s all about doing it better. Moreover, clarity is an essential part that gets overlooked. It’s what separates good from great.