Huerta88 - your handle hurts you

The BBQ Pit
241

Ellis Dee: any ONE of the things is perfectly normal. Keeping the thread going was odd, but you’re right, the posts themselves were nothing remarkable. By itself, meaningless. Any of it by itself is meaningless.

He could have been born in 1988, or his claim about his name on AOL could be true.
He could have decided to use the DOJ cite like any other SDMBer would have.
He could have decided to keep that thread going to pile on Nifong.

Taken separately, each is a normal behavior.
Put them together, and they become a package: from the experience of this site and from what I’ve seen over on The Dark Side, the chances that a user with an 88 in his name is a neo-Nazi is very high. Not certain though, so before Saturday morning I didn’t feel it was anything.
Ditto for someone using the DOJ stats to prove a racial point on crime: I’ve never seen that done by anyone who wasn’t, mostly because the only place I’ve ever seen it done is on the neo-Nazi websites. I can’t even begin to fathom what a normal Doper would see in citing those stats, given their monumental irrelevance. As I said, my first reaction was, man, that’s bizarre, and then I looked at his username, remembered where I’d seen the exact same webpage used in the exact same way, and figured, OK then. Still, not enough to go public with.
As a bonus, there’s the particular stat he used: I still can’t come up with any innocent reason for focusing on that one statistic, especially when it was asterisked, as was pointed out above, for having a tiny sample size and therefore being inaccurate. That the copy used happened to match the one used on these sites is even more damning.

Those two together, especially with all those extra-credit bonuses, are already enough to make me very suspicious. Not enough to make me say anything, though.
For me, the last straw was seeing that he was the ONLY one keeping that thread going. Normal if odd behavior otherwise; but taken together with the first two, I’m approaching certainty as to what he is. As I said, before I logged on on Saturday morning and saw that, I didn’t think much about this. Actually, I still don’t, but I do think there’s enough here to merit going public with my suspicions, being as there’s a nice little thread all set up for debating the very topic. Wouldn’t have brought it up otherwise. I mean, I don’t have the time to start threads on wildly incendiary topics like this. I’d never get anything done in real life.
YMMV, of course.

242

Don’t find the hypothetical, I think posters are misreading Bricker. I dont’ think he was accusing Huerta of anything. The guy is blameless in his eyes. Bricker launched this thread as an attack on posters who suspect the origins of Huerta’s username. Instead of pitting the people he has a problem with, he took a round-about approach.

But you’re right that Bricker has set this thread on slow boil (I just love that phrase!)

243

As I mentioned, you with the face has amply demonstrated that turds are all she understands. Just looking for common ground. :slight_smile:

Good. Make sure you include the part where you claim ywtf hasn’t accused anyone of racism - in the post just after the one in which she admits that she was accusing Huerta88 of racism.

You’re right, it will.

Flounce this, bitch.

Regards,
Shodan

244

It’s not just AOL users who do it…[stares at own username sheepishly]

245

OK, I can see your point. I was judgeing things pretty much from that one post plus the few others that I could remember. Looks like you’re being lumped right in there with the rest of the “they” being referenced in the slave-master style rape post.

246

Thanks for the viewpoint. I’m still getting my feet wet around here and finding it a tad trickier than lurking.

247

Your arms must hurt with all that twisting you’re doing.

She accused his thoughts as racist. She did not say he was a racist.

But you know what? She should have. I fail to see a meaningful distinction between being racist and thinking racist. And as you continue to post, you show yourself to be an apologist for a racist. How do you feel about that, Shodan?

I’m tired of people tiptoeing around this issue of whether Huerta is a racist. Why are we being kind and gentle with a guy who has not shown any regrets for the nasty remarks he made?

I’m all about being civil and respectful, but we should never be too scared to call a duck a duck.

248

pantom, I get what you’re saying, but it’s a bit overly-broad for my taste. It would seem to me that a reasonable explanation for some of the meaningless stand-alone tidbits would remove those tidbits from the pile.

For example, I could add this thread to a pile of evidence that you have a personal vendetta against him. That pile would currently consist of just this one meaningless tidbit, but if I continue to include it regardless and keep an eye out for future “meaningless evidence”, I’m sure I could eventually build a case.

I’m not particularly fond of that methodology.

Truth be told, I don’t care about his beliefs or motives. I’m not socializing with him IRL or on this board. What I do care about are stories related to the Duke LAX case, and he’s provided more than everybody else put together. For that I thank him. I don’t ignore information based on the motivation of the source, though I will scrutinize it more closely depending on perceived bias.

His contributions to the thread include countless articles related to the story, and monstro characterized those links as “turds.” That doesn’t strike me as a productive attitude. Links are links, not to be discounted merely because of who provided them, but rather on their content.

You seem to have bought into her characterization, identifying his postings to that thread as another piece of the puzzle that unlocks his neo-nazi sympathies. I see them as pertinent links, albeit with some vitriolic editorials about Mike Nifong.

Then again, from everything I’ve seen and read, his editorials about Nifong are justified.

249

Ellis Dee, no one has “bought” my characterization. People here have eyes. They can see his arguments for himself and make up their own minds.

His arguments were turds. Your arguments were turds too. I don’t care about the articles because I don’t have an interest in the Duke case . But I do care about bad argumentation, especially when it concerns data.

I’d hate for someone to twist the statistics I collect at work the way you guys would like I us to.

250

Thank you for saying this, monstro.

Just because we don’t have any evidence that the guy’s head is shaved or that he has pictures of Hitler in his wallet, it doesn’t mean that its a"stretch" to think his name was selected for a specific purpose.

No, we don’t have any evidence that he’s a card-carrying neonazi. But we shouldn’t have to see the card before we start being suspicious of him and his name choice.

After having a taste of his rhetoric (in addition to the odd coincidences that pantom pointed out), it’s clear to me that, regardless of his membership status in the Neonazi party, his benefit of the doubt expired a long time ago. I’m not saying he needs to be banned. But surely all of what has come to the surface should factor into people’s assessment of him as a poster.

Another thing to point out is that even if you don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to be suspicious of Huerta’s name, you gotta admit the guy isn’t helping to purge 88 of its reputation. I hope everyone can agree with that.

251

Here’s the way I see Huerta in that thread. I think the guy is supposed to be a lawyer, right? If not, he likes to play one on the SDMB. Certain types of lawyers absolutely hate to lose arguments. I don’t think he wanted to make that big a deal about the DoJ statistics, but he wasn’t going to give it up because it was an argument he made. Then the debate started going in two different directions, and people started talking past each other.

When things got nasty between him and YWTF, he tried to lump her in with the overly race conscious “mob” that was gathering at the scene of the crime and with radical feminist types who make claims like: all men are rapists, therefore the woman in this case must be telling the truth. That wasn’t called for, but shit like that happens in the Pit. If you want ot have a straight-up debate, that’s what GD is for. (Now, I’ve had plenty of very honest, clean debates in the Pit, but you can *never *count on that happening.) It’s just too easy in the Pit to switch from a mode where you’re tying to score points in a debate to a mode where you’re just trying to heap insults on your opponent. Hell, that happens in GD all time, it’s just that the insults are more subtle and indirect.

The NeoNazis that we’ve had in here have all gotten their kicks from trolling threads that they start. A few have tried to sound reasonable, but there was never any doubt in my mind what they were. I don’t see that **Huerta **fits that “fact pattern” to use a phrase from the other thread.

252

I don’t know if he’s a neo-Nazi or not, but he sure is a douchebag.

I’d call him a tool as well, but tools are actually useful.

253

I disagree.

Most of the thread’s content has had one theme: “Lying Whore”. The subject of conversation from post #1 was that the allegation was false and the accused are innocent. Ergo, the accuser is lying or unbelievable.

The DoJ stats were introduced as a data point to support the main thrust of the OP.

I disputed that relevancy of that data point, based on both statistical principles as well as “What the hell does race have to do with it?” principles. A team of posters tried to convince me that the DoJ stats had a place in their analysis of the case, and I argued with them. Never did I try to convince them that the accuser was telling the truth, though. Only that if they were going to be skeptical, it should only be based on the evidence or lack thereof. Not on misapplied statistics. And definitely not on race.

(There was a side argument b/twn me and Contrapuntual about the prudence of treating remarks from the defense as a “factual account”, but that was relatively minor.)

Within that 20 page monster, amazingly enough the stat and race thing was the only main argument. So I’m not sure what other direction the thread had taken.

Yeah, I know. But just because rude stuff happens in the Pit, does that mean we can’t see this type of response as being a strong indicator for some rather ugly beliefs? If I got in an argument with you in which I was the one misappropriating some statistics and you were trying to correct me, and I flipped out and started suggesting that you were in league with KKK demagogues trying to oppress The Black Man with whips and nooses, what would you think of me? Would you just shrug this off with “Oh well, it’s the Pit and scientists get mad when they lose an argument.” Or would you say “Gee, this kid is showing some symptoms of a black militant agenda dashed with a generous helping of good ole fashion paranoia. She is sort of scary!”

If I were you I would.

:slight_smile:

John, you’re making the same error that Huerta and friends did. Just because all the neonazis (that you know about) were blatant with their ideologies and posting styles does not mean that this particular poster whose name bears 88 must behave the same way in order to belong in their club. He may simply be an outlier in the neonazi population when it comes to that particular behavior. Maybe he has more diverse interests and therefore is at ease in IMHO and MPSIMS as well as the Pit threads like the other one. We don’t know what other message boards he visits. It’s possible he comes here mostly to unwind and is not all that concerned about proselytizing until a racially-charged issue hits the press. Like the Duke case. No one can deny that the guy has a lot of “good news” to share.

I don’t know. I’m just speculating at this point. None of the above counts as evidence against the guy. I’m just saying that I have my doubts that his name was chosen innocently and at random, and I believe that position is more than justifiable at this point.

254

Well, Ellis Dee, prior to that other thread I took very little notice of him, and that’s something I expect I’ll continue hereafter. He’s not particularly interesting. Very much a one-dimensional character.
To make things clear, I read that thread out of curiousity, just like anyone else, when it started, and I liked it because it brought out info that you simply weren’t getting in the news.
It’s also true that everyone, including the subject of this thread, was bringing in good info, and I became deeply skeptical of the rape allegation as a result. Indeed, this was part of the reason I lost interest, actually, since I figured that it was only a matter of time before the whole farce blew up. I still think that.
It is possible, though, to both believe the rape allegations are false, and that h88 is a neo-Nazi (definitely fits the “fact pattern” of one, to borrow borrowed phrase from the Mace man). Both conclusions are consistent with what went on in that thread, including his gutter-level remarks to ywtf.
It’s also possible to conclude that the conversation about the case would have advanced to a far greater degree than otherwise without his el-bizarro introduction of those stats. He costs more than he’s worth, even in terms of the contributions he brought to that thread.
As for Bricker and the rest, well, the less said the better. The mere fact that none think the stats’ introduction or use is inappropriate is bad enough; even worse is that none of them think less of h88 for that rape jab at ywtf.

255

While I agree that 88 is a commonly used identifier in less than savory circles, it’s definitely not proof by any stretch of the imagination, and while I think that attempting to align Huerta numerogically with Hitler requires a jump in logic that I’m certainly not willing to take, I keep asking myself one thing. Why does he choose to have an alternate account if everything is on the “up and up”? I’ve actually attempted to come up with plausible and innocent explanations for the alternate account, but especially considering that all long-time board members are aware of the rules against it, I can’t come up with a good one.

It’s quite possible that he has a perfectly valid reason that I haven’t thought of, so I’m withholding judgment.

256

Let me explain further. I think Huerta realized that he couldn’t apply those national statistics to this specific case, but instead of admitting that, he tried to generalize the argument by claiming that your resistance in this particular case must mean you think crime statistics can never be used in any circumstances. It’s a common tactic I’ve seen form several other posters. If you can’t win one argument, switch to another. That’s what I mean by it went in different directions. Now, that’s my perception, but at least one other perrson agreed with me on that. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe I’m not. I doubt we’ll ever be able to prove that.

Probably. BTW, I was afraid I’d come as too flip with the comment about it justing being the Pit and that’s what happens there. I don’t blame you for being pissed. Why not open a Pit thread to vent if it really bothers you?

Maybe. But until and unless he starts spouting NeoNazi or White Supremacist ideas, I think the best thing is to just debate on the up and up. But like I said earlier, I haven’t encountered him all that much on this MB.

257

Huh?

As I told Bricker, arguing with the circle-jerk numerology crowd is worse than useless (what’s the cube root of your phone number, by the way?), so I don’t. But WTF is this a reference to? The only thing I can think is that I mentioned my e-mail account/username on yahoo represented a successful attempt to secure my preferred 87. Have I suggested that I maintain an “alternate account” on SDMB, in the name of orinoco87 or otherwise? Huh? Are you reading what I’m reading? Are people reading (as witness the jerkoff who referenced my “AOL account,” which I don’t have and never mentioned, I think I know the answer to that question for most of the “contributors” here) at all?

Or do Godwin’s rules also forbid my having two free e-mail accounts on the planet? Please, I NEED to know. It is ONLY FAIR that people tell me how I can win the Platonic Guardians’ Solomonic (wait . . . would I invoke him if I were a Nazi? Oh my God, I’m even cunninger than anyone thought) anti-Fascist seal of approval, because there is NOTHING I crave and need more.

Carry on with incestuous (in one case, I guess literally) nutjob circle-jerk. It’s obvious my Genetic Fallacy point sailed right on over the heads who could have most used it. You are all heroic anti-Fascists. I am but a lowly exposed crypto crypto crypto crypto Fascist, who has taken White Pride to such a clever extreme as to deny it entirely and eschew its actual practice or promulgation. Man, you guys really caught me out, especially dumbfuck “the letters add up to some number that is sort of like some other well-known but not very well known number, and stuff.”

My apologies if that was a brilliant and subtle attempt to mock self-congratulatory Godwinizing dumbfuckery – as I said, at this point I can barely tell the real Godwin conspiracists from the brutal satires thereof. And that in itself says as much as needs to be said.

258

And the issue that Bricker’s OP brings to mind – intended or not – is does Huerta88’s username look like a duck. To those who are familiar with the neo-nazis practice, he certainly looks like a duck, but may or may not be. The evidence is inconclusive.

Does he walk and talk like a duck?

Based on just this one post, his “talk” doesn’t disqualify him yet. Damn he is mean-mouthed. Wonder what he means by your ilk? He has a tendency to want to group people.

I saw enough at the Whore thread to know that he demonstrates his belief that the art of argument includes using patronizing names for women, telling people what they are thinking, and claiming to speak for everyone.

I doubt that he’s seen the inside of an inner city for years. (Just a bet.)

I think to form any judgment about his political leanings, I would probably be more likely to look at his posting history – especially his early days. See what topics he has been interested in most often. Have they been about issues of race and ethnicity more often than other subjects? Has he been more likely to use the word “black” in his posts than (pick a name at random)? If he is obsessed with the topic, he might use the word in a greater percentage of his posts.

No, you are safe. So far the Great White Disgrace has been kept from public tables. It would help if you would tape your mouth.

259

Since monstro snivelled in the other thread that the meanies were piling on you with the face because she had carelessly let slip that she was a black woman, I’ve been waiting for her to roll up with the proof that I, for one, am a racist.

crickets

My take on the slavemaster-rape thing, by the way, is that ywtf would be understood to welcome it, not as rape qua rape, but as confirmation of her worldview that the sistahood was being systematically oppressed by the white man, now as in the 1840s. It’s sort of like the climax of the Mamet play – Oleanna? – when the student finally aggravates the professor into beating her and she exclaims “Yes, yes, that’s right” as he does so… not because she is a masochist but for the satisfaction she derives from having her all-men-are-violent-shits philosophy confirmed. Of course, I could be mistaken.

260

We’d still be considered oven material by Nazis. I take a lot of pleasure reminding Spanish neonazis of the lousy treatment the División Azul got from their Nazi “pals”.