Re post text: For context, Washington state is mail-only voting, so that number would (I assume) be for all votes, not just specifically requested mail-ins. I didn’t see it in the article, but I wonder if that is predominantly “centralized” or “distributed” in nature; i.e. are technically-valid ballots from all voters being incorrectly rejected by the county elections facilities office at different rates across racial lines, or are there other factors like targeted disinformation, education, local infrastructure, or socioeconomics that disproportionately affect Black (or other types of minority) voters that would make them more likely to produce a technically-invalid ballot?

Those might get the same statistic, but would seem to indicate very different sorts of problems and approaches.

To be fair, proper ISO 8601 specifies hyphens as the separator between date elements, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a XXXX-XX-XX (with hyphens) be used for YYYY-DD-MM. Just XX-XX could perhaps be ambiguous, but fortunately that’s not allowed by the standard, and anyone using just year-day for XXXX-XX is absolutely trolling. YYYY-DDD could have a use, though should really use a separate separator to not sort together IMO. A year-week designation could possibly look like XXXX-XX, but that seems unlikely to just be dropped in that format without context, at least to my western US sensibilities.

I’m really not seeing the flow from claiming that basically “selective breeding [some sense of eugenics] could result in biological changes in humans as it does in other animals” to being a proponent for eugenics in either a moral or policy sense. There was an naked counterclaim that it wouldn’t work, but honestly that’s immaterial to my first sentence, and I don’t know that I believe it either. Could you create an overall biologically “better” human? Dubious, if you could define such a thing in the first place. Could you create a human with superior moral or intrinsic value? Definitely not.

It’s certainly a completely bonkers statement to drop out of nowhere. There’s no context given in that article nor in a few others I found, but I don’t think it’s unfair to assume there was some sort of context or trigger.

There was a apparently another statement about abortion and Down’s that IMO just reads like an amateurish attempt at using absolute utilitarianism to make a profound, off-the-cuff observation based on a pretty ignorant set of assumptions. Yes, it’s a stupid statement that makes a pretty generic argument for eugenics with other assumptions, but the core claim of “an action that causes net negative happiness in the world is immoral” is, strictly speaking, not morally indefensible. There is a correcting of facts required, but essentially the same logic is used for the fairly non-controversial (as any abortion, at least) termination of a pregnancy that would only result in suffering and a dead baby. Correcting facts is, I think, much less substantial than correcting thinking.

Is there anything else substantial I didn’t see? To use just this as a basis for a declaration of “open eugenicist”, to me, just dilutes very powerful terminology that I’m sure many people definitely fit.

Also, as a side note, some of the takes in some counter-articles were absolutely wild. If your position is that (even if you don’t recognize it yourself) “Gee honey, I don’t think we’re in a financial position to try for another baby” is eugenics, it’s hard to believe there is actual meaning behind any string of words you manage to get out.