D. J. Bernstein is very well respected and for very good reason. And I don't have firsthand knowledge of the background here, but the blog posts about the incident have been written in a kind of weird voice that make me feel like I'm reading about the US Government suppressing evidence of Bigfoot or something.

Stuff like this

> Wow, look at that: "due process".... Could it possibly be that the people writing the law were thinking through how standardization processes could be abused?"

is both accusing the other party of bad faith and also heavily using sarcasm, which is a sort of performative bad faith.

Sarcasm can be really effective when used well. But when a post is dripping with sarcasm and accusing others of bad faith it comes off as hiding a weak position behind contempt. I don't know if this is just how DJB writes, or if he's adopting this voice because he thinks it's what the internet wants to see right now.

Personally, I would prefer a style where he says only what he means without irony and expresses his feelings directly. If showing contempt is essential to the piece, then the Linus Torvalds style of explicit theatrical contempt is probably preferable, at least to me.

I understand others may feel differently. The style just gives me crackpot vibes and that may color reception of the blog posts to people who don't know DJT's reputation.