You said the "logical conclusion" is "doxxing" them. You haven't explained why, and it's not at all obvious why you would say that. So yes people think that's your argument. If you are arguing something different, you need to explain better.

I actually did explain:

Here’s a real quote from my comment, rather than a few words out of context in quote marks:

“That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands.”

It’s obvious that I am not saying they should be doxed.

But sure - if people are just reacting to a few words without reading the whole comment or what is a reply to, then they won’t understand.

No, that doesn't explain. Why does blood on their hands make doxxing mandatory for everyone that believes that? Nobody has said anything like that except you.

I never said doxing was mandatory for everyone that believes that. Misquoting me and exaggerating what I said isn’t going to lead to a better understanding.

However if you believe that doxing of individual law enforcement officers is justified because of their support for the regime, and you accuse Apple’s team of having blood on their hands for ‘enabling’ the regime, it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees.

> it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees.

But your comment didn't just say such a person would conclude it's justified. You said the logical conclusion would be them participating in the doxxing. Those are very different things. The list of actions that I think are justified but don't participate in is enormous.

(And by "mandatory for everyone that believes that" I meant that logic would mandate it, which is the same as it being the logical conclusion.)

But even with your new version, just talking about it being justified, well that's not necessarily the logical conclusion. One reason is that their participation is at a different level, so the justification might not extend to them.

And if you go by the motive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738218 then identifying the police is being done for a very direct purpose to level the playing field on the ground. Someone might reasonably feel that this reason doesn't apply to Apple employees, even while saying that Apple employees have blood on their hands.

You have introduced some abstraction and hypotheticals about how people might reason about this that the original commenter was not expressing. I agree these are interesting points.

It is true that some person might have the nuanced sentiments and tactical analysis you hypothesize, but the actual person who I was responding to didn’t seem to be expressing such a complex view in their comment, and my original reply still stands as a reasonable challenge to the implications were of what they wrote, given the sentiment with which they expressed it.