>It's like you didn't see where I agree that current enforcement is too aggressive. Why are you writing in a tone that implies we disagree when we agree? This is the sort of thing that confuses me.

I combined my response to your comment[0] and its parent[1], as I mentioned:

   I'm not pushing any "broader political narrative" either. Just pointing out a 
   few things not mentioned in your or GP's comments.

Rather than disagreeing with you, I was attempting to add nuance and additional substance. As the site guidelines[2] recommend:

   Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone 
   says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. 

You appear to have assumed bad faith on my part. Why is that? Was I not clear enough? What could I have added to the above to be clearer?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46620707

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46618048

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html