Rage is useful, ranting is not. Channel the rage, direct the rage. Rage is like gunpowder packed into a gun barrel: a controlled, directed, concentrated burst of energy toward the enemy. Ranting is like gunpowder left to explode on a table top: all smoke and noise which impresses people but once a year (Guy Fawks night or Independence Day), but poses no real danger, is of no real threat.
Rage is useful in the same way that a snowplough is useful at removing a snow drift from the road, or an explosive charge removing a rockfall from a mountain pass: it removes obstacles that prevent you from doing what you want to do. If you are being frustrated/thwarted by a thing (be it a material thing or an immaterial thing) to such an extent that the thing is stopping you from doing your will/pursuing your dreams, then using rage to obliterate the target is completely justified. The only issue that matters is that you are destroying the object to allow you to express yourself, your freedom.
A fundamental intention of the cosmos is to be free, unrestrained, and allowed to pursue it's will. Anything that prevents the cosmos, or its contents, from pursuing it's will, is thus opposed to a fundamental intention of the cosmos. This means that 'any means whatsoever' can be used to destroy the 'thing' that prevents or inhibits freedom. The 'thing' may be a material thing such as a person or concrete wall, or an immaterial things such as a civil law or customary law (1). Thus by using rage as a means of destroying such objects you are entirely justified in your actions, regardless of what others may think of you.
However rage can be used, and is quite often used, unproductively. Unproductive use of rage is when the person wielding it does not wish to destroy the 'thing' that oppresses/thwarts them, but rather they desire to keep rallying against it, which thus requires the thing to continue to exist. This could be because the person lacks faith, i.e. because they cannot conceive any other possible future other than the one that they are, and have been, living. This is, to me at least, the case with several bloggers, past and present, in the Androsphere. Those bloggers who engage in what is called 'The Daily Rant'.
Ranting is unproductive and only seeks to entrench people further in their mental state of 'being oppressed' or 'denied their rights'. They either whine about the system being rigged against them, or find some in-vogue human target to bitch about. Rarely do they provide any real solutions to help themselves or their readers remove the obstacles that are frustrating them in the first place (be it advice with social relationships, the legal system, or genuine human psychology). All in all the Ranter wastes their rage in a cheap fireworks display: a flash, bang and smoke, then it's all over. All that pent up rage is wasted. The grand result of this fireworks display is that the Ranter feels temporary relief from his oppression; but that's all it is, temporary. The rant itself offers no real help on how to remove the obstacle that's oppressing them and so they remain stuck in a rut.
MW over at 'Mind Weapons at Ragnarok'(http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com) has a saying: 'Quietly, Patiently, Earnestly'. This is exactly the opposite of what the average ranter does: loudly, quickly, flippantly. The rage of the Ranter is used too loudly, too quickly and too flippantly:
"Yeah, we're all fucked. Society's fucked. Western civilizations fucked. Men are fucked. So what? Who gives a shit? Suck my fucking dick.".
And that's the reason that Ranters are so fleeting and fail to make a positive long-lasting impression.
If they could control the rage, then they could channel it into 'earnestness', and then they would be considerably more productive in their works. The result of this self-control would be that their blog entries would improve: they would tend toward the insightful rather than the obvious, the edifying rather than the debasing, the enabling rather than the frustrating. And so I say to these people, these Ranters: rage is useful, ranting is not. Channel the rage, direct the rage.
(1) However that doesn't mean that all laws are in contradistinction to freedom, as many laws actually increase freedoms. This can be proven by the fact that human beings are subjected to more laws than the average boulder (cell division, genetic mutation, mendelian inheritance etc) yet have more freedoms than the rock. Therefore showing that more laws do not automatically mean fewer freedoms.