My mother has schizophrenia.
Until she got medical help, I got an earful of ramblings and felt the behaviors on my own skin. I don't want to give examples here, just not to need to relive these moments again. Afterwards, I was visiting her for a year in psychiatric hospital until she was finally released, after the symptoms receded to livable levels and she stopped refusing her medication. I met many people with schizophrenia there.
Currently, I need moments to recognize the symptoms. It's really uncanny, very hard to confuse with anything else once you've seen enough of it. And if you think it's "offensive stereotype", please first spend a year on regular visits at psychiatric hospital to determine if the "stereotype" is false.
Or should I sugar it up, and keep silent about such things, just not to offend your sensitivities?
Let me detail the specific reason why I rejected this specific edit suggestion:
The suggested replacement was meaningless ramblings.
Meaningless ramblings may be fully internally consistent, delve into insignificant detail, and build a compelling argument about something we don't care about. One of its forms might be exactly excessive world building, where the author feels compelled to explain every least detail of a fictitious setting. It might be a laborious attempt to further prove a point that is already proved in excessive sufficiency (beating a dead horse), or a common sin of newbie writers, enunciating what was already shown with perfect clarity (show AND tell). A typical meaningless rant will be two pages sacrificed to proving superiority of hanging toilet paper flap forward instead of flap back.
Meanwhile, the typical schizophrenic rant is much opposite: its subject, had it not been a confabulation, would be extremely concerning to everyone. It's definitely not meaningless - it's overflowing with meaning!
But it's also a very specific style - completely filled with narrative, at cost of proofs, supporting logical arguments and exactly world building. It presents actions and events, while absolutely skimming details of characters (the notable they), omitting or glossing over technical details (frequently in regard to actions about impossible due to technical difficulties), and emphasizing the significance of a threat, frequently without delving into how exactly given action is a threat.
There is a very strong resemblance between this style, and creations of a beginning authors, for whom the world, as created in their imagination, is so vivid they feel writing it down is a waste of time; wrongly assuming the reader will be capable of building the same world just from what is written, performing only as minimalistic world building as necessary for upcoming sentence. Events happen, and the reader doesn't know why; locations are not fleshed out, so when we get glimpses, we must tear down the image we had built earlier, and replace it to fit the jarring elements; actions are taken that - while possessing a perfectly adequate explanation in the writer's head - appear as total deus ex machina to the reader. The theme is fictitious, and usually the subject matter is completely different, the resemblance of style is uncanny.
This is why I rejected the edit, and I'm open to accepting one that accurately captures this concept.