Just look at these blocks. Three de-cleaters in one play! All legal(ish)!
Above is a punt return by Linfield College, and it's about as exciting as any Div III play is going to be. Jump cuts and spin moves don't look quite right when kids try them on at less than SEC speed, but the gigantic, obliterating hit translates to any language, any level. If you want to blink past football's issues and accept it as as an immutable, largely unchanging part of the universe that can be enjoyed in that framework, this is a perfectly fine play to take in. Bow out here.
But if you go through the comments on for this video, on Sports Radio KJR in this case, or for any similar plays on Deadspin or anywhere else around the internet, you'll notice a weird thing happens when you start discussing the individual merit of a big hit. No one discusses whether or not these hits are debilitating. (Of course they are—most everyone agrees on at least that by now.) Instead, the standard procedure is to whip out the rule book and apply as much jargon as possible to the application of the rules, which are themselves likely written with a limited understanding of their practical effect on the game. You saw this with the hit on Le'Veon Bell, with fans arguing over the legality of the hit as the player laid motionless in the end zone, or the fussing over the (il)legal(??) hit that turned Drew Brees into a sea turtle. You especially see it when there is a violent hit that is illegal, like Brandon Meriweather's hits in the Bears game, typically with Mike Pereira on hand to break down the legalistic qualms from the "official" point of view, essentially slapping a uniform on the crossing guard. There is an entire cottage industry involving putting rule-abiding violence in context.