Normally, charity in an interpretation means that there's a way that it could be taken where it makes sense. I don't think that's the case for this comment.

The most charitable interpretation I have is that the original poster is a paid shill -- in other words, they're bright enough to realize what they're saying is idiotic, but they're just doing a job to put food on the table. It'd take some evidence to sway me to that view.

Seriously?

I don't agree with their comment. But after looking at their comment history, I see no evidence for them being "a paid shill". Contrarian and outspoken, sure. But not a shill.

So much for not making it personal!