this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
82 points (80.6% liked)
Technology
63010 readers
3374 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's an article about curing baldness, all context is pre determined.
Like sure, if we're just bringing anything up, why care about baldness when I can't breathe underwater, or if I can't raise the dead?
If scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.
I mean if it's a damaged or failed it's a bad gene. It caused ms!
It's not shitting on a person, it's discussing a condition.
I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.
"Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad". That's wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn't change their value or goodness.
When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.
Context matters.
It’s judgmental language and totally unnecessary.
It's a bad gene. It's literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.
Sorry it hurts your feelings
We've both made our points and opinions known here.
Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.
You think a person's worth is tied to their genes. Pretty yuck. I disagreed and explained how.
For the record I was calling YOU out for linking a person to their genes, just not directly, trying to be courteous to the conversation.
Keep replying now, and you're just slapfighting. Not worth it. I said in the last comment our positions are well known and the conversation is functionally concluded.