Some sites offer a premise and then embed numerous Tweets from the questionable-important to back them up. Also noticeable is the millennial tendency of applying violent imagery to self-congratulate themselves for offering up a counter argument.

Wrecked: Ben Shapiro Destroys Stelter for Denying Media’s Liberal Bias
PA-POW! Ben Shapiro SHREDS Chelsea Handler in just 7 little words for bad Pence joke
Trevor Noah Destroys Sean Hannity For His Delusional Las Vegas Response
Seth Meyers Shreds ‘Lowlife’ Donald Trump For ‘Lying To The Elderly’
‘Morality of abortion does not change’: Ben Shapiro destroys case for abortion after rape
Is Jenna Jameson crushing on Ben Shapiro after he ‘destroyed’ The Young Turks’ head lib?
Blac Chyna’s Lawyer Shreds Rob Kardashian for ‘Hate Filled Lies’
Oh SNAP! Brit Hume SHREDS Samantha Power over her pathetic Hillary-loss sads in just 3 WORDS
WATCH: Ben Shapiro goes to Congress & DESTROYS campus snowflakes
Ben Shapiro Nails Exactly Why CNN’s Anti-Gun Town Hall Will Backfire in a Huge Way
Watch: Ben Shapiro uses facts to skewer Linda Sarsour supporter who defends call for jihad against Trump
Shapiro shreds idea CA not spending enough
Watch: Steve Forbes destroys the GOP tax plan — and explains how Republicans ‘betrayed’ Trump
Ben Shapiro nails truth about dangerous ‘alt-right’ movement in fiery tweet storm
‘I’m not going to modify basic biology’: Ben Shapiro destroys transgender, pro-abortion arguments

Whether they’re destroying, killing, shredding an opposing point of view, does applying violent verbs to their headlines imply their counters are unassailable and if you dare question them, you’ll be destroyed?

This kind of runs contrary to their demands that all points of view be respected. They consistently demand all points of view be observed, whine about being excluded from oppressive progressive venues, yet they “stun”, “nail”, “destroy”, “shred” and “kill”, armed with “backfires” and “bombshells” for opinion that differs from their own as a way of further diminishing their opponents personally. Not to exclude their constant need to make their intellectually superior retorts portrayed as “epic”.

Talk about the need to boost fragile egos.

I think a lot of this younger generation were brought up to believe that it’s very important that their voices be heard, and so I think it’s a bit harder to fit into an institution where it’s less than democratic in some ways. One generation came of age where they entered this esteemed institution and tried to find a way to fit into it, and this other generation has an expectation that the institution will change to accommodate them. That’s the essence of the tension.
— “Institutional” New York Times “person”

Is THIS the future of journalism, led by the generation that snorts Tide pods and inhales condoms? Disagree with them at your own peril? While leading assaults against teenage online bullies like David Hogg, our side counters with those whose prime motivation is self-promotion using the worst of the English language to force us to notice them, when they want us to notice them, for as long as they want us to notice them.

This is just one of the reasons we don’t open their “news” alerts and when we do, it’s for comic relief or a sense of pity for what was once a respected craft.