• GoebbelsDeezNuts [any]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Are we supposed to use "CW" for amputees? They're human that seems pretty fucked.

    • PapaEmeritusIII [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Srsly….

      “CW: person existing while being visibly disabled”

      Yeah it’s fucked for sure

      • mar_k [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        It doesn't talk about the amputation process tho, so I don't really see the need for a warning. Do we need a warning for going in public and possibly seeing an amputee because it might disturb us to think about what might've happened? I had a classmate with a fake leg in 3rd grade who talked to me about it and I wasn't grossed out. We're adults, this shouldn't be disturbing or abnormal to anyone

        • Abracadaniel [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          There are other things one can encounter in public which may require a CW here, like meat or mentions of some violent acts.

        • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]M
          ·
          2 years ago

          It doesn't talk about the amputation process tho, so I don't really see the need for a warning.

          This is my take. Somebody getting amputated? CW for gore. A person with a disability? CW is inappropriate.

    • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I guess my question leftover as someone who never posts is: is there a list of the sorts of things we want CWd? Not to be a lib about it, but I've been very confused many times for what sort of person is helped by CWs at various moments. This is the first though where the CW actually has a very negative effect. So I guess what sort of goal do we have with content warnings is a better question