In this question, I paste a graphic which has this text-content
That one time I went to a mortuary and some cute mortician girls gave me a butt plug. Seriously. This is to prevent post mortem leakage. Personally I find it somewhat satisfying to know that every homophobe who has been buried in the last few decades is spending eternity with a butt plug firmly screwed into their ass. I mean LITERALLY, look a this fucker, it's got fucking threads on it!!!
This content is used to substantiate the underlying question and claim,
Are cadavers normally embalmed with “butt plugs” before burial?
A moderator of the site, modified the above transcription and truncated it only reproducing the first part,
That one time I went to a mortuary and some cute mortician girls gave me a butt plug. Seriously. This is to prevent post mortem [anal] leakage.
My objection to this is that,
- It's ablest. The purpose of providing a transcription while maintaining the text is merely to make the graphic more accessible. By truncating the transcription you're passing a moral judgement that will only affect those that are using a screen reader. That seems unfair.
- It hurts indexing where obscene parts of the text seem likely to be used in search. Any thing in an image not in text is not indexable on StackExchange or Google.
- While not pertinent here, I think oftentimes the offensive part of the text can be used in the answer to address the inherent bias in the claim.
The original outline of the site called for,
Quote from it (a direct quote, not just a paraphrase)
I would argue that cutting memes apart is what is meant by paraphrasing here, and likely to remove context.
- An image description (text placed between
]) is explicitly limited to 100 characters Writing things in block quotes under the image is how StackExhchange works around this within the markdown limitations.
What stance should the community take on this matter?