All readers have to go by are the words you write.
Do you take those things into mind when you proclaim his good intentions? A simple yes/no will suffice.
I didn't proclaim him to have good intentions. Seriously, has everyone lost the plot so completely? This is absurd.
For some critical thinking practice:
A: Marvin is a rapist!
B: Marvin is aggressive and a bit of a misogynist, but I don't think he's a rapist.
A: Rape supporter! Marvin Fanatic! You're proclaiming Marvin's good intentions!
A: Julie wants to set the building on fire!
B: Julie talks a lot of ****, and she is an abrasive bitch, but I don't believe she actually wants to set the building on fire.
A: Arson evangelist! Julie sycophant! You're proclaiming Julie's good intentions!
Let's backtrack a few years for a discussion that actually occurred...
A: OMG, I'm terrified that Trump is going to push the reed button and start WW3!
Me: I really don't think that's likely to happen. Trump is a blowhard and a braggart and an embarrassing person to have in charge, but I don't think he will actually go that far.
A: You're a Trumpkin!
Me: No, I'm not. I just think you're way overreacting and getting wound up about something that is extraordinarily unlikely to occur. Trump sucks, but he's not, you know, the actual devil.
A: See - that's proof that you secretly love Trump!
At what point among "skeptics" did it become acceptable to assume that failure to emotionally condemn and attack a target due to baseless assumptions and fearmongering somehow get magically transmuted into support for that target? It's completely irrational.
FFS, next you'll be telling me that my failure to jump into one of the bigfoot threads and call people names means that I secretly believe in bigfoot!