Ranting about ranting

The following is a journal entry that I did for my Criminology class. Basically we are free to write any feelings that we have towards our class in our journal entries. This is what I decided to write on a few weeks ago.

It's weird, when I sit down to work on my journal entries the first thing I ask myself when trying to figure out what to write is "what is there to complain about?" It's almost as if I feel like we, in this class, are expected to rant about something, and if we don't we aren't being a deep pensive thinker. So for this journal entry I have decided that I'm going to rant about the feeling of obligation that we have to rant in order to sound like a deep thinker. Is that hypocritical? I have noticed in other people's journal entries that it seems like I'm not alone in this thought. One student felt the need to apologize to Billy that they didn't have anything to complain about for their journal. Is that what is required of our society's best thinkers? Can we be deep thinkers without bashing an idea or person? I think our mistake might be that we have made a superficial connection between those who think "outside of the box" and those who rant about the ideas "inside of the box." Is it really the obligation of those outside thinkers to bash those who choose to say within? Maybe that is the only way to brake those people free of the societal "norms". (Then again, is it wrong to have people who think inside the box?) I think it's a shallow thought, one that you could almost say is an inside the box viewpoint, to think that in order to be a deep thinker you have to rant about something. We should progress into a new thought, one that doesn't require us to reflect on the flaws of society in order to see ourselves as a successful intellectual thinker.