[ledauphin]

I strongly sympathize, but my thinking on this is that it's _extremely_ hard to find someone whose ethics match yours without thinking deeply (and you and the writer both being exceptionally transparent) about what _motivates_ your ethics.

What I've found is that it's not at all hard to find someone who comes to conclusions that frequently make me feel 'satisfied'. But that, if I'm honest, it's often exactly the kind of echo chamber the parent post is warning about, precisely because the 'analyst' is avoiding transparency about their priors - and in fact avoiding any examination of them at all. And without that transparency and curiosity, the 'analysis' is really just very basest form of partisan politics, which is to say "We'll support each other as long as we agree."

I wish you luck in finding thoughtful and transparent analysis, though!