The public discourse in the US, especially in the realm of politics, culture, and social science, has a high share of denunciatory diatribes in its contents. Denunciatory diatribe is a public condemnation, or a public display of displeasure with some practice or institution portrayed as "dominant" (it is generally a straw man in that discourse), followed by emphatic embracing of an alternative to that practice or institution that has some shock value in it. For example, talk show radio hosts would denounce "liberal elites" and embrace gutter, petulant conservatism as an alternative. Radicals would denounce "Western culture" and embrace gangsterism or radical Islamism as an alternative.
Such denunciatory diatribes have generally an opposite effect on me - being exposed to them I tend to identify with the denounced practice or institution more than I ordinarily would, and I am less sympathetic toward the proposed 'alternative' than I ordinarily would be. I wonder if others have similar reactions, and if so, if denunciatory diatribe is really a clever marketing ploy to sell the mainstream practices and institutions.
Wojtek