I have gotten a good bit of information from other Twitter users about "mind-reading" and "impugning motives" or "assuming bad faith".

But one cannot help but take historical and social context into account when attempting to understand or interpret communication.
(1/6)

Everyone enters into communication with a myriad number of motives. To ignore that is foolish.

Moreover, the underlying human impulse is and will always be to interpret. There are *no* people who do not "mind-read".

It is just that some are willing to make it known.
(2/6)

I like @philosophus90 idea of *beginning* an interaction by taking them at their word. Makes sense, you have no data to go on.

But with experience, you should feel free to use your own knowledge and their prior behavior to come to a conclusion about their intentions.

(3/6)

In other words, place the present communications in a social and historical context, and interpret it like a normal human being.

(4/6)

When people agree with this interpretation or find it favorable, the person likes your comment or gives some other sign of support.

When they don't agree (or their motives have been identified), they say it is mind-reading or impugning motives.
(5/6)

It seems to me that the charge of mind-reading, then, is another overused IDW strategy.

Similar to finding a Motte and Bailey in every argument, or identifying the "logical fallacy" in every tweet.

(6/6)