Yes, but . . . −21 on 67 votes implies a lot of upvotes too. Now, on a topic like this, I would always consider the possibility of brigading. But I am guessing some of the downvotes were strong and from high-karma users, meaning that the upvotes to get to “only” −21 net karma must have been fairly numerous and/or included strong upvotes from high-karma users.
I could see people upvoting this post because they think it should be more like −10 than −21. I personally don’t see it as concerning that it’s “only” on −21.
That’s plausible, although I find it somewhat less likely to be a complete or primary explanation based on my recollection of voting patterns/trends on past eugenics-adjacent posts.
In any event, I don’t think “was down-voted a lot” (from harfe’s comment) would be a complete summary of the voting activity.
Yes, but . . . −21 on 67 votes implies a lot of upvotes too. Now, on a topic like this, I would always consider the possibility of brigading. But I am guessing some of the downvotes were strong and from high-karma users, meaning that the upvotes to get to “only” −21 net karma must have been fairly numerous and/or included strong upvotes from high-karma users.
I could see people upvoting this post because they think it should be more like −10 than −21. I personally don’t see it as concerning that it’s “only” on −21.
That’s plausible, although I find it somewhat less likely to be a complete or primary explanation based on my recollection of voting patterns/trends on past eugenics-adjacent posts.
In any event, I don’t think “was down-voted a lot” (from harfe’s comment) would be a complete summary of the voting activity.