I have a comment that takes no issue with the central argument of the 'Mind Projection Fallacy' sequence post, it's just about an embellishment that is, I think, false and a little cringe-inducing:

From "Mind Projection Fallacy":

But the Mind Projection Fallacy generalizes as an error...to Kant's declaration that space by its very nature is flat, and Hume's definition of a priori ideas as those "discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe"...

This should be removed or altered. Kant's declaration that space is by its very nature flat is a declaration about the conditions of experience, not the world as such. He's explicit that space and its flatness are not features of the territory (so to speak), but necessary features of the map. He may be wrong about this, but it's not a case of the mind projection fallacy.

As to the Hume comment, this is a bit of a non-sequitor as phrased: a definition of a philosophical term can't be a case of the mind projection fallacy.