You don’t know the context,

I do know enough of the context to back up what I said, because the poster did provide enough details through the post. Like this:

1. "and have done my fair share of talking to people as well as toward people" - or, roughly, "I'm used to expose what I think". This strongly hints "random" (i.e. non-specific) topics; either casual monologues or casual discussions. Either way it's hinted that it isn't a single topic.
2. "some talks being more passionate than others" - i.e. multiple discussions. "Passionate" reads like an euphemism for "heavy disagreement"; and while this utterance isn't enough to confirm that reading, it gets confirmed later on.
3. "so I guess having my odds of this reduced is a factor here" - there's some edition error here but, alongside the adjacent utterances, it conveys roughly "so I guess that my odds of being wrong in this claim are reduced by a factor" or similar. OP found a pattern that they claim to believe to be true.
4. "when I say occasionally “projecting” will be brought up during a conversation." - further confirming that OP is talking about multiple discussions.
5. "It’s always in an accusatory kind of context" - confirms #2 ("passionate" as an euphemism, it's basically name calling). And that "always" confirms multiple occurrences.
6. What OP did not say: anything that even hints topic-dependence, further reinforcing #1.

Parse the above and you get the context - OP is talking about debating multiple topics with different people, and found what they believe to be a pattern on the usage of the word when there's a fight.

Remember - just like the context provides information to interpret the text, the text also provides information to determine the context.

because OP didn’t provide any details of what was being discussed. [i.e. the topic]

As shown above, OP is claiming to have found a pattern across multiple discussions. As such, "what was being discussed" is not relevant here.

It’s entirely possible that it was a valid call in some or all of those situations.

Yeah, nah.

Outside psychoanalysis this "waaaaah ur projectin" shite is on the same tier as name calling, "NO U", whataboutism and similar crap. It's fallacious, and it assumes shit about the other person. It is not a valid argument, it's condensed idiocy.

Side note: while anecdotal I can confirm, independently from OP, that people often use this "waaah projection!" pseudo-defence a bit too often when discussing.

It is an actual phenomenon in psychology, where you assign a set of your attributes that you consider undesirable to another person. It works like a defence mechanism to stabilise the psyche. It is not that commonly discussed though - except perhaps in psychoanalysis.

And that's exactly why those "keyboard psychologists" (who are neither psychologists, nor informed laymen) repurposed the term into the "no u!" defence that I mentioned. It's simply too good of an excuse when someone criticises them, an easy way to turn the criticism against the critic.