But the rant isn’t really about the inanimate object. It’s about the author, and it implies a story and paints a character. If there’s a coffee table in a bad p

But the rant isn’t really about the inanimate object. It’s about the author, and it implies a story and paints a character. If there’s a coffee table in a bad place in my office, and I bang my shins into it every morning, there’s a dramatic persona I’m expressing as the person who’s angry at the coffee table. It’s not really about the coffee table - it’s about my relationship. And that’s a strong point of view, and it’s comedic and entertaining because of the strong commitment to that perspective that to everyone else might seem silly and bizarre. It implies a narrative of this person’s commitment to die on the hill of hating linux’s dynamic linking behaviour. Essentially a lot of criticism of the original article seems to be of the form of “reading strong, angry opinions like this make me feel insecure so please don’t do that”. And that might be a good reason to avoid writing like that. But tone policing, and insisting on emotionally desaturated writing has a cost for the reader and the writer. I think it makes us smaller. And it keeps us in our heads rather than in our hearts. That’s just not the way I want to live my life.