I just realized that ‘rant’ doesn’t have the usual negative connotations for me that it probably does for others. For example, here is my rant about people changing the subject in the middle of an argument.
For the record, the article originally began “Eliezer’s anti-philosophy rant...” but I’m going to change that.
Rant doesn’t necessarily have negative connotations for me either, it really depends on the context. Your usage didn’t look pejorative at all to me. It’s sort of like a less intensive version of “vitriol” and there is no problem (implied) if the target deserves it (or is presented so).
It is similar to the word “extremist”, the technical definition is rarely only what people mean to invoke, and it’s acquiring further connotations.
Losing precise meaning is the way to newspeak, and it distresses me. It is sometimes the result of being uncomfortable with or incapable of discussing specific facts, which is harder than the inside view.
Interesting, thanks.
By the way, what is ‘the agenda that prompted the author to write it’?
I just realized that ‘rant’ doesn’t have the usual negative connotations for me that it probably does for others. For example, here is my rant about people changing the subject in the middle of an argument.
For the record, the article originally began “Eliezer’s anti-philosophy rant...” but I’m going to change that.
Rant doesn’t necessarily have negative connotations for me either, it really depends on the context. Your usage didn’t look pejorative at all to me. It’s sort of like a less intensive version of “vitriol” and there is no problem (implied) if the target deserves it (or is presented so).
It is similar to the word “extremist”, the technical definition is rarely only what people mean to invoke, and it’s acquiring further connotations.
Losing precise meaning is the way to newspeak, and it distresses me. It is sometimes the result of being uncomfortable with or incapable of discussing specific facts, which is harder than the inside view.