Aside from what I called out in my sibling comment these two are pretty snide:

"A fortune built on the sales of sewing notions and glitter has paid for many of the country’s most influential megachurches and scriptures delivered to the most remote corners of the world. A careful calculation of potential proselytized souls drives every financial decision."

"Perhaps the Greens, in their inexperience, did not understand the magnitude of their actions. Perhaps the Greens just didn’t care. Maybe when you believe that human souls are on the line, it’s easy to unshackle yourself to the ethical and legal trade guidelines that shackle secular academics. Maybe the money saved and the ancient items procured were powerful enough to make the risk worthwhile. "

Well. Those sure are incredibly mild.

This entire thread is among the most bizarre things I've ever seen on HN.

They are mild in the context of an internet flame war or rap fight sure.

There might be real discussion to be had on Hobby Lobby and their actions however it is hard to get there because you are trying to pick through pure conjecture and speculation with the style of writing makes it look more like an opinionated hit piece.

When you get this level of people jumping in to deflect based on tone, you know you're doing something right.

The person you're responding to isn't acting in a curious manner, they're trying to poison the well.

> Aside from what I called out in my sibling comment these two are pretty snide to me

- "Snide" is subjective. - It's a blog post not a news article or scholarly report. - The topic is a business run by people who ostensibly make decisions based on their faith to justify actions which cause various harm to others. Taking a critical view of those actions and the motivations is reasonable.

A snide comment is one that disparages or belittles another person, so I don't think it can be subjective.

Edit add:

I find this entire line of reasoning to be odd: >It's a blog post not a news article or scholarly report. - The topic is a business run by people who ostensibly make decisions based on their faith to justify actions which cause various harm to others. Taking a critical view of those actions and the motivations is reasonable.

I am being asked to take a critical look at Hobby Lobby, the reasons are outlined in the linked Substack. However, if I have any questions or criticisms of the Substack article, please note that it is not a professional work it is just a guy with a microphone.

If I can't trust the source material, how can I trust the claims?

One person's "disparagement" is another's valid criticism. You can see this come up constantly in lawsuits.

All I'm saying is it's a random site on the internet for a person who is a "Certified Bonafide Expert of Miscellanea"—no one is asking you to "trust the source material". If you think that aspects of the post bring into question the validity of the point being made, that's your right. I just think it's a weird expectation. The author even speaks to that: https://substack.com/@meghanboilard/note/c-102976235

> What exactly do you find "snide" or "sarcastic?"

I haven't read the article, but certainly the phrase "whose entire schtick" doesn't belong in journalism that purports not to be sarcastic or snide. That's the kind of thing that goes in a Tumblr post.

1) It's just a substack post...? Where the hell is all this "this is poor journalism" stuff coming from? This substack post is also a really bad if we judge it as a children's picture book.

2) I take it HN is not familiar with a whole major subgenre of journalism in which "whose entire schtick" would be perfectly at home?

So I am not familiar with Substack a quick look at Wikipedia says "Substack is an American online platform that provides publishing, payment, analytics, and design infrastructure to support subscription newsletters."

If people expect a level of quality of reporting rather than "guy with a blog" from things hosted on Substack that would explain the comments.

I will also note that the top of the thread really only said that if the author wanted to be taken as an even handed reporter than in the commenters opinion they need to change their tone. If the author doesn't want to come across as an even handed reporter, then the tone is fine.

I personally find the tone to be off putting as it seems to be not fact based at all and is often making a conclusion from the premise rather than giving me an argument to get me there.