I contain multitudes, don’t ya know?
truly bizarre, isn’t it. and of course the added bit about an obscure study done on college rape allegations referred to again and again as if it’s uncontested fact. truly ugly.
John, I’d rather not muddy through that cesspool.
To summarize, he was using race-based crime stats to evaluate the plausibility of the Duke rape case. Huerta thinks that the rape allegation was absurd on its face, not just because of the lack of evidence or the contradictory witness statements (which anyone can get behind), but because the crime stats don’t reveal a lot of white guys raping black women. In fact, he offered the crime stats as “proof” even before the flimsiness of the case was fully revealed in the media. Unfortunately, he had a bunch of folks agreeing with him that this “reasoning” is rational. They of course scoffed when you with the face pointed out their unjustifiable fixation with race and their continued dismissal of more relevant variables. Apparently being called a racist (which she never did, btw) is a worse offense than having someone intimate you want to be raped. Bricker incorrectly labeled her actions as ad hominem, while staying mum about his buddy’s shitty posts. I’ve decided Bricker isn’t an honorable poster or debater. He’s just another blowhard hidden behind well-written posts and self-proclaimed authority, and I’m embarrassed that I ever thought otherwise!
If you keep plunging through that thread, you’ll see a post from me, desparately pleading for input from you and other Dopers respected for their love of reason and rationality. Bricker chimed in towards the end, but surprising (or maybe not so much) he was on Huerta’s side. I hope that you are more intelligent than he is.
That was my first impression, too. Knowing the connatation but not seeing it in his posts seems a bit McCarthyistic. Guilty by association?
I disagree. The number hasn’t been given meaning in a way such that everything it touches is marred.
If it’s not made a big deal of and he is judged by his posts, it will go away.
When the bell rings, Pavlov’s dog salivates even when there is no food. That is because of his experiences. Dumb dog. He should salivate only when the bell rings and he is going to get food, right?
Thank you, Zoe, for summing it up so well. 
One would assume users of the SDMB are humans.
Enjoy,
Steven
You have mischaracterized many things about that thread.
Huerta has never once cited anything as “proof”. Huerta has also recanted his DoJ cite.
That thread shout not be closed. It is a thread devoted to discussion of the Duke Lacross rape case, which is a legitimate topic of conversation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with crime statistics. You and your sister, you with the face, have mounted a 10 page scorch and burn policy in that thread in order to derail discussion.
Huerta got ugly after the incessant hijack went on for weeks. After months of the obnoxious hijack, he resorted to the attack quoted above. While I can’t support his attack, I generally have the same attitude as Chris Rock espoused about the OJ case. “I’m not sayin’ you should have killed her, but I understand.”
I’m not saying he should have gone after her regarding her race, but I understand.
I find it interesting that both you and your sister have lamented multiple times, and now in multiple threads, that that thread should be closed. It is a legitimate discussion. The only thing making it so ugly is the willful hijacking by your sister and you. So it should be closed because you shit in it?
Seems to me there’s an ulterior motive afoot.
Also, just to make this perfectly clear, part of the actual news story was that race is indeed a determinative factor in rape. Huerta did not introduce this idea out of whole cloth. He was specifically responding to these media reports.
Notably, many supporters of the accuser publicly stated – and received much coverage of their statements – that this case was yet another example of a long history of white men raping black women. Huerta refuted these claims with the DoJ stats.
And what was you with the face’s reaction? To attack Huerta. Not one word about the media deluge covering the original statements which seem to violate the very principle she’s so vigorously defending. I can personally attest that this “white men like to rape black women” idea was indeed a large part of the original media coverage of this story, particularly in early April when Huerta first addressed this question. you immediately jumped in wondering why he would introduce race into this case. He didn’t. His cites and position were actually about this case as it was reported in the media.
I strongly urge anyone reading this to read posts [post=7291236]159[/post], 160, and 162. They are short, easy reads. 159 is when Huerta first wonders aloud about the idea. 160 is where you accuses him of introducing it to the story. 162 is where he explains that he didn’t bring it up; it was already part of the story. That last one should have ended the hijack. But it didn’t; instead you with the face went crazy over the next 700 posts spanning 8 weeks.
So to recap, blacks say that whites like to rape blacks. Huerta refutes this by showing that whites almost never rape blacks. you with the face then loses her mind ranting about this for 13 pages.
Yeah, the problem is the 88 in Huerta’s handle. It can’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that you with the face is batshit crazy. Doggedly arguing that part of the actual story being discussed is not germaine to the discussion? What color is the sky in your world?
Count me as one of those who never knew of this connotation with 88 until now. If you are really offended by a poster having this in his name you need to get a life.
When I asked him to provide a cite for all these supporters claiming such a thing, he cited two posts from two separate message boards from two people who had this opinion. Big whoopty do! And it’s clear he only dug this up after I asked him to. Meaning, he had a preconcieved belief and went searching for any and everything that supported that view. Nevermind that two message board excerpts make crappy cites. Many =! two.
You know that’s not true. The thread is there for everyone to see, you gigantic idiot, so there is no need to lie. If anyone stated attacking anyone, it’s the mega fool whose dick you persistently suck.
Because I give a rat’s ass about the media and this case.
Well then you should have no problem providing us with some cites. We can’t wait to see them.
I agree that as between the ‘88’ and the fact the you with the face is dumber than a box of owl droppings, the more serious problem is the latter.
But my experience with posters who are dumb as a box of owl droppings teaches me that a Pit thread pointing that out almost never has the result of the poster feeling chastened, admitting his or her stupidity, and withdrawing. Even when the whole board, practically, descends on a poster for being an idiot, they tend to remain defensive. So I had few hopes of opening ywtf’s eyes to the problem of her terminal stupidity.
Huerta88, on the other hand, seemed open to honestly weighing and responding to the idea that perhaps his handle was lending his opponents an attack vector that he never intended. A silly, vacuous, and unsupported attack vector, to be sure, but one undeniably present.
I just finished reading the entire “Lying Whore” thread. One great irony pervaded it: the DoJ statistics (PDF) do not support Huerta88’s claim for them, but it was accepted by everyone who didn’t declare it irrelevant. (I considred discussing this in the other thread, but since it’s come up here…)
His claim is first presented in post 212:
What was his mistake? He grievously misconstrued the footnote for the asterisk following the 0.0% figure, which says “Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.” It does not say that of the 24,010 rapes or sexual assaults reported by black victims, less than 10 had a white perpetrator. What it means is that the starred figure has such a small sample size that it is not statistically reliable.
Just looking at the data more critically should have made anyone realize this, as if credulity were not sufficiently strained by the idea that there were only 9 accusations of white on black rape over a one year period. For example, the table shows 0.0% of black victims accused a white perpetrator (all asterisked, of course) for both robbery with property taken and attempted robbery. In fact, an asterisk appears in almost every case where the white on black or black on white percentage differs by more than a couple of percentage points from the proportion of the population that’s black (about 12.9% ).
I don’t know the details of their sampling method, but a rough sketch shows why such a small sample size makes reasoning from the results all but useless. Suppose the probability that a black victim is attacked by a white perpetrator is 12.9% and we take a random sample of 10 victims. The result is a binomial distribution has mean 12.9%, with standard deviation of 10.6%. Increasing the number of samples to 50 still leaves a standard deviation of 4.7%
Now it is very curious to me that no one in the thread ever bothered to question the 0.0% white on black figure. Giving Huerta88 the benefit of the doubt, he may, having found a number that seemed to support his point, neglected to be sure that it actually did, then repeated it until he and almost everyone else no longer thought of questioning it. Especially those who supported him, viz post 430:
I’m more puzzled that those who disagreed with Huerta88 also failed to question his numbers. you with the face argued consistently and persistently that the races of the accuser and the accused did not go to the accusers credibility at all, so she refused to look at the Huerta’s cite on priniciple (if not stubbornness), despite the extensive statistical training a professional epidemiologist must have received. But she (he?) also made the case that we shouldn’t expect much difference in the incidence of white on black versus black on white rape. Though she also listed several likely confounding factors that would relatively reduce the reporting rate of white on black victims, I think the 0.0% DoJ number would have jumped out at her as dramatically unlikely if she weren’t so wound up in her argument.
… it is quite clear from your citations that not only have you twisted everybodies words, but you are speaking a load of crap.
Post 159:
…you characterize this as Huerta88 “wondering aloud about the idea.” Would you care to explain what the “idea” you are talking about is?
You characterize this statement as “accusing him of introducing it to the story.” What rubbish. It reads as a simple question to me: maybe you could answer it. What relevance does the commonality of white on black sexual assaults have with this case?
This is what you characterize as Huerta88 explaining that he didn’t bring it up; it was already part of the story. Well that may be how you read his sentence, but it most certainly isn’t what he said. Huerta88 claims protestors have suggested that this incident is symptomatic of endemic white-on-black sexual violence that goes unpunished. When, in post 165 you with the face asks for a citation, Huerta88 links to a google cache of a weblog community and to another message board. you with the face then rightly dismisses those citations.
But it is the next part of Post 162, a part that you chose not to paraphrase for some reason, that becomes the crux of the debate.
Point one is indeed a point that would be fair to debate. Point two is a crock of shit. Whatever disclaimers that Huerta88 chooses to post, it doesn’t stop the fact that in post number 172 Huerta begins a rant that concludes with this statement:
…no one denies that Satanic Ritual Abuse, and false accusations of abuse are serious issues. New Zealand had a famous incident: the Christchurch Civic Creche case that saw Peter Ellis serve ten years based on contrived evidence. But Huerta88 argues on the basis of statistics, prosecutors should consider exercising “probabilistic discretion”. This entire line of arguement is a dangerously ignorant one. Prosecutors should make decisions entirely based on the evidence at hand. Huerta88 later states:
…to put quite simply, in the absence of any definitive revealed evidence, Huerta88 believes it appropriate to use probabilistic models for “what might likely have happened or not happened”. So despite all of Huerta88’s disclaimers, he believes that in this particular case he would fall back on the"probabilistic model"
…later, we hear:
…well, no wonder your angry if that if that is the impression you got from the thread. You stroke with a pretty wide brush: “blacks say that whites like to rape blacks.” How many black posters in the thread stand by that? How many black people believe that? What you really meant to say was that some people, including an unidentified man on a message board and somebody on a weblog cited by Huerta88 believe that whites like to rape blacks.
…yes, Huerta refutes a couple of nameless bloggers and people that you claim are already part of the story. But you with the face says this in post 214:
…in simpler words: Huerta88 refuted something that you with the face never claimed or argued.
This is so laughable its not funny. While I do not agree with everything that you with the face has said on the issue of rape, the way you have reframed the arguement between you with the face and Huerta88 is truely a sight to behold. you with the face’s central position is that:
…not a very complex arguement, do you agree? Do you deny that that was her position for the majority of the thread? Would you like to restate what you consider you with the face’s position really is?
…well, gosh darnit, feel free to discuss it. But despite your reframing, the debate between face and Huerata which began at Post 160 was not about race at all, but about the use of statistics. Its truely amazing how much emotional baggage the race issue has in the United States that something that appears to an outsider as common sense, can turn into 18 pages of craptacular bullshit.
I didn’t look at the cite because
A) My computer sometimes has issues with PDFs
B) I didn’t want to waste time sifting through irrelevant data.
C) I didn’t want to based my argument on the data, because I didn’t want to be accused of the very thing that I was accused of. That of having a problem with the data. I have no reason to pick apart the data.
My arguments would have held true whether the true reported incidence was 0 or 100, so I didn’t feel it was necessary to argue the data itself. Someone else, (maybe yourself) could have picked up the mantle for that cause and I would have appreciated that. If I remember, though, Waenara did mention something about the numbers being rounded down or something to that affect.
you with the face, That’s more or less what I thought you’d say, and I can object only weakly if at all. It took some close reading though, especially as the eyes began to glaze around page 13; at times you shaded towards ambiguity about whether you were saying his number didn’t matter, that you were accepting the number arguendo, or possibly actually accepting it – given that at one point I took you to be arguing that the white on black and black on white numbers shouldn’t be too different.
I shoud add: as it turns out, it didn’t really take any sifting – once the PDF was loaded and I got to the right page, the problem was obvious.
I used Huerta’s interpretaton of the data (white-on-black rape is 0%) as a basic premise and argued from there. But I didn’t accept it as truth simply for the reason that I hadn’t seen it.
Note this post where I say:
I specifically gave no number because I hadn’t reviewed the data myself. Taking the time to do that would have cost me time and would have allowed my opponents to make even more snipes about me wishing more whites would rape me. Surely you can understand how that would have happened, me being a self-identified black woman, right? I wanted the issue to stay focused on data extrapolation, because the numbers themselves matter very little.
Now that I think more about it, I recall having the same problem that Zoe had when she tried to access the DoJ stats. A few times I did click on the link and I wasn’t able to find the page the data was on. I just shrugged it off and kept on trucking, didn’t look back.
And somehow, he’s supposed to be the poor widdle put upon victim. Give me a break.
:rolleyes: (Not you, John Mace, I meant in general)
you with the face, I see where you’re coming from. And things were moving pretty fast at that point.