Sometimes users post rants as questions or answers, some posts seem to be more about broadcasting a certain world view than actual contructive posts. These posts tend to be controversial at best and just plain offensive at worst.
Handling those on the main site is pretty straight-forward, questions get closed as not constructive and depending on how bad the posts are they'll get deleted rather sooner than later, or even sometimes immediately.
The aspect I'd like some input on is how meta posts about such incidents should be handled. I've encountered this a few times now and sometimes the meta post is as bad as the original one it is about. A certain amount of quoting from the original post may be necessary to be able to discuss the post, but allowing users to use meta as another venue to publish content that was deemed non-constructive or offensive by the community seems like a very bad idea.
I've always considered the meta sites to have somewhat more relaxed rules than the main site, one purpose of them is to let the users criticize the actions of the community and the moderators. Closing or deleting posts related to such criticism contains a significant conflict of interest, and I tend to let even barely constructive posts slide.
How much should I intervene as a moderator in such cases? Is completely deleting quotes from posts deleted due to being rants or offensive warranted, leaving only 10k user with the full text? Where should the line be drawn on users defending their posts, when the defense essentially continues their rant that has been deleted?