Have you ever read an article where you agree with most of the author's points, but the writing is terrible and the argumentation a little off? This is that art

Have you ever read an article where you agree with most of the author's points, but the writing is terrible and the argumentation a little off? This is that article. EDIT: Let me elaborate on my reasons for not liking this article, despite mostly agreeing with the author politically. The first problem is that it's simplistic, bombastic, and lacks nuance. This is great for opinion pieces and political rhetoric, but it's bad for actual discussion, and media --- in particular longform posts --- that trade nuance and reasoned arguments for bombast and emotion are to be treated with extra skepticism. The second problem is that, while assholes are a huge problem in American society, the author seems to lump every asshole into one rich "asshole class". The same assholes are simultaneously the ones bullying children online, making money while cutting benefits, and influencing young women with impossible beauty standards. In my experience, it's not the same group of assholes doing every asshole thing. It's many different groups of assholes, a lot of them neither wealthy nor successful nor famous. The third issue is the notion of a "conspiracy of assholes to dominate our culture". In my opinion, it's much more local: assholes help themselves, and when it's in their ulterior interest, others, and influence groups and think tanks and whatnot exist, but from what I can gather, there is no singular grand conspiracy to speak of. There are localized conspiracies, to be sure (look at the MPAA, regional telecom monopolies, and so forth for particularly egregious examples) but these are neither controlling of everything nor organized to the level the author portrays. In any case, the author does not cite a source other than an allusion (without source) to Marx. The fact that the reference to Marx is impossible to follow up on leads me to my last major issue with the article: writing quality. Occasional malapropisms ("altercations" should be replaced with "alterations"), a lack of references to anything* (there are no hyperlinks besides an image credit), and other issues detract from the article. And that's a shame. The idea of being more critical of those in power and authority, of reforming the tax system to benefit the many rather than the few, and most of the other ideas she proposes in the last are really quite good, and ones I agree with myself. It's a shame that they are given in a package that is less amazing than the ideas themselves, with arguments that are less sterling than the ideas deserve. * I know it's an opinion article and it's not supposed to be full of outside references, but if an article is just one person giving an opinion without external justification for factual points, I personally find that a flaw. Admittedly, this is a matter of personal taste on my part.