Comment on Did UCLA Just Cure Baldness?
GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 week agoIt’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?
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 week ago
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.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s judgmental language and totally unnecessary.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 week ago
It’s a bad gene. It’s literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.
Sorry it hurts your feelings