ShiverMeTimbers

Ask again so we're clear. Do that while I answer how it's transphobic with three points.

1. The channel misgenders everyone it doesn't like.
2. It allied itself with an incel who was transphobic, including towards one of the people it was claiming to protect from, ironically, transphobia (all because the supposed suspect was the person the channel was made to slander in the first place, and the person they were supposedly trying to protect from transphobia even called the channel out on that as well as the fact it's a slander channel).
3. Said person who the channel claimed it was protecting from transphobia has BPD and has mental health issues stemming from his experiences, and could have used encouragement from those same people who claimed were protecting him from transphobia, with Triagonal even sending an SOS signal to the people who were slandering her, but oh no, it wasn't about the person the channel was made to look bad looking bad, so nothing was said.

Textually legitimate, contextually legitimate, or subtextually legitimate?

These are all different. Plus you actually have to prove their ages and their local legal ages for it to even begin to be legally binding.

How am I slandering by posting the screenshots

I answered this question. You then edited it to include another one.

The person above Triagonal asks for NSFW material. It's straight up dark web material. Triagonal simply asks for a story about a day out.

This is how the two of you sound right now.

Unedited does not mean contextually accurate.

Three reasons for that.

1. Slander under law does not require it to be a lie.
2. It is a lie. The context is different in both instances. Anyone who sees the whole thread knows.
3. The channel you link to is known for being transphobic and not caring as long as it calls out people it doesn't like as pedos, because that's what it is, a slander channel.

I've been in tune to this for a while.

Funny you mention legality. The person the OP is slandering (as in it's not true enough to be considerable), was actually taken to court and acquitted in all instances, because the people trying to target her with slander fall apart under due process. She wasn't depicting anything NSFW about minors, she just used wording that missed a beat.

TL;DR Yes, there are absolutely other ways to view this, especially when you did not question the defense. Gullible lemmings, I see why this place is Communist now.

The OP is lying about several things and taking other things out of context, which was their whole point in coming to Lemmy and ban evading twice when they got caught the first two times.

The OP is lying about several things and taking other things out of context, which was their whole point in coming to Lemmy and ban evading twice when they got caught the first two times.

The OP is lying about several things and taking other things out of context, which was their whole point in coming to Lemmy and ban evading twice when they got caught the first two times.