# Lying whore. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153 "2006-04-10T22:26:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 60
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1181 "2006-06-02T16:35:35Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > You don’t deserve an apology because you are dishonest when it comes to recounting what I say to you and not even particularly slick at it. > > _This_ is what I wrote to you: > > (emphasis all mine) > > Any fool can see I was asking you to peruse the thread a little bit and _then_ report back on what your opinion of the thread is. The implication is that _if_ after doing that, you don’t agree that that’s nasty, then I don’t know what would. > > I did not deserve to be called a lying weasel just because you misinterpreted a very innocuous request. I should have blasted you right after that attack, but I didn’t because I was in the middle of grown folks conversation. If\* anyone should be stomping their feet for an apology, it’s me. Nice try. Oh wait, not really. Where did the hypothetical come from? You know, the one that mirrored my words? What transpired previous to your post that suggested to you that I found the slavemaster comment not to be a nasty one? This what you do. You answer a piece of this or a snippet of that and hope that folks will just forget that you are blowing smoke. It is tiresome, but since my honor has been impugned **I will not let you get away with it.** To recap: I asked **holmes** for a few examples and he provided two, to which I replied (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > **Holmes** , I just don’t see a particularly nasty tone \*\*in those \*\ ***posts** , especially considering the context of this thread. to which you replied with your quote above. To borrow a phrase from you, any fool could see I was referring to those two posts and those two only. After I challenged you on that slur, you hemmed and hawed and equivocated about the meaning of the word “if,” all the while refusing to provide simple answeres to direct questions. Now, it turns out, you were just to busy to give a real answer, but now that you think of it your post was actually a suggestion to me to read more posts, not a suggestion that I found the slavemaster remark to be benign. This is patent bullshit. If you wanted me to consider that remark it would have been but the work of a moment to point me to the post and ask me what I thought of it. But you accuse me, get called on it, and proceed to backpedal and wince around like a fucking idiot, when a simple “My bad” would have cleared the air. Try to learn to say what you mean, and mean what you say. Your path will be the smoother for it. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1182 "2006-06-02T16:38:25Z")
**Huerta** , I was asking **ywtf** how she came to associate me with the phrase, not where the phrase originated. But thanks for the explication. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1183 "2006-06-02T16:43:52Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > … does not view the comparative rarity of white on black rape… Do you have another cite for this? Did you read my post above demonstrating with your own data source that your selection of the year 2003 and your neglect of the previous years of data gave a false impression of the “comparative rarity” of white rapists of black women? If you do not have another cite to demonstrate that black women report fewer instances of rape by white men than white women report of black men, then **FUCKING STOP MAKING THIS BULLSHIT CLAIM!**. Here, try this: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY “COMPARATIVE RARITY” OF THE RAPE OF BLACK WOMEN BY WHITE MEN If you, or anyone else make this claim again without any further evidence, you are intentionally being a lying cocksucker. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1184 "2006-06-02T16:52:05Z")
Who would have thunk that **Hentor** is a part of the “Tawana continuum”? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1185 "2006-06-02T16:55:26Z")
Now, now **Hentor** let’s not disrupt **Huerta88** ’s worldview. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1186 "2006-06-02T17:31:23Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Do you have another cite for this? Did you read my post above demonstrating with your own data source that your selection of the year 2003 and your neglect of the previous years of data gave a false impression of the “comparative rarity” of white rapists of black women? > > If you do not have another cite to demonstrate that black women report fewer instances of rape by white men than white women report of black men, then **FUCKING STOP MAKING THIS BULLSHIT CLAIM!**. > > Here, try this: > > THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY “COMPARATIVE RARITY” OF THE RAPE OF BLACK WOMEN BY WHITE MEN > > If you, or anyone else make this claim again without any further evidence, you are intentionally being a lying cocksucker. Fist order answer: Of course it is “comparatively rare” because as everyone here has said, “by comparison” to interracial rape, intra-racial rape is significantly more common across the board. Second order answer: **DMC** posted this elsewhere, positing it as more germane to the circumstances. I am not going to represent that year-on-year patterns in N.C. would exactly replicate these numbers, because I haven’t looked at any year other than the one **DMC** found. Those N.C. Justice numbers suggest that for the year in question, whites were alleged to have committed a smallish (mid single-digit) percentage of the total reported rapes of black people in the State. [http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/2004/IndOffState/Rape/RapeRacAnal04/RapeRacAnal04/raperacanal04/raperacanal04.htm](http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/2004/IndOffState/Rape/RapeRacAnal04/RapeRacAnal04/raperacanal04/raperacanal04.htm) ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1187 "2006-06-02T17:35:56Z")
Stop being a dick. You know full well that **Hentor** was referring to your constant mantra of white rape of black women being rare in **comparision** to blacks raping whites. Can you go any lower? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1188 "2006-06-02T17:38:00Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > If you do not have another cite to demonstrate that black women report fewer instances of rape by white men than white women report of black men, then **FUCKING STOP MAKING THIS BULLSHIT CLAIM!**. Actually, [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7446146&postcount=1147) that I made a few days ago cites statistics for rape\* in North Carolina. It does show that the type of rape, listed from most frequent to least, are: 1) White on White 2) Black on Black 3) Black on White 4) White on Black. The last category represnts about 5-7% of the cases, depending on the year you look at. I also noted in that post that Blacks in Durham represent twice the % of the population as compared to the state as a whole (in fact Whites and Blacks are about equally represented in Durham), which could change the stats for that city. One would expect White on Black rape to be more common in Durham than for the state as a whole, but I don’t have stats to show that, and there could be other factors affecting that rate as well. \*I assume those stats are for rape convictions, not the raw data of reported rapes. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1189 "2006-06-02T17:43:13Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Stop being a dick. You know full well that **Hentor** was referring to your constant mantra of white rape of black women being rare in **comparision** to blacks raping whites. > > Can you go any lower? Not as low as you, fuckwit. Show me my “constant mantra” on anything about blacks raping whites, dumbass. I have **never** adverted to or relied upon the frequency or non-frequency of blacks raping whites because it is not directly germane to this thread. If the proposition is that (supposedly) “when black women are raped, it is most often not by a white man,” the proof vel non of that statement has nothing to do with whether when a white woman is raped, her assailant is white, black, or purple. The proposition could be true if no white women were raped at all, but some black women were, and I’ve **never** cared in this thread about the statistics on who was being reported as raping white women. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1190 "2006-06-02T17:49:25Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Show me my “constant mantra” on anything about blacks raping whites, dumbass. I have **never** adverted to or relied upon the frequency or non-frequency of blacks raping whites because it is not directly germane to this thread. Neither is the frequency of white-on-black rape. Funny, that. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1191 "2006-06-02T18:32:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Actually, [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7446146&postcount=1147) that I made a few days ago cites statistics for rape\* in North Carolina. It does show that the type of rape, listed from most frequent to least, are: 1) White on White 2) Black on Black 3) Black on White 4) White on Black. The last category represnts about 5-7% of the cases, depending on the year you look at. Somethings funky about those numbers. For example, in 2004, the table of victims by race suggests that there were 1,398 white victims and 790 black victims. Yet, in the offenders OF white victims, there are 1,591 total, and 913 offenders of black victims. Is it that in approximately 200 cases there were two offenders per victim? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1192 "2006-06-02T19:10:46Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Somethings funky about those numbers. For example, in 2004, the table of victims by race suggests that there were 1,398 white victims and 790 black victims. Yet, in the offenders OF white victims, there are 1,591 total, and 913 offenders of black victims. > > Is it that in approximately 200 cases there were two offenders per victim? Yeah, I noted something like that in my original post. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1193 "2006-06-02T19:48:38Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Not as low as you, fuckwit. > > Show me my “constant mantra” on anything about blacks raping whites, dumbass. I have **never** adverted to or relied upon the frequency or non-frequency of blacks raping whites because it is not directly germane to this thread. > > If the proposition is that (supposedly) “when black women are raped, it is most often not by a white man,” the proof vel non of that statement has nothing to do with whether when a white woman is raped, her assailant is white, black, or purple. The proposition could be true if no white women were raped at all, but some black women were, and I’ve **never** cared in this thread about the statistics on who was being reported as raping white women. This whole thread is full of it, as are you. Despite your claims to contrary, I seriously doubt had this been a black on white case, I **seriously** doubt that you would’ve even thought to dig up stat on the ‘rarity’ of such things or bothered wanking off to it, for 20+ pages. You have a fundamental belief that whites aren’t attractive to blacks and that’s the reason you explain why the stats are what they are. You suggest that the DUKE team have an issue towards black women, but since as far I as know no one’s ever suggested that, it comes from YOU, what you think. > [@](#): > > This is a point worth really focusing on. Modern day American white guys, for whatever complex of (not necessarily admirable) cultural influences, beliefs, aesthetics, assumptions, are not (the statistics tell us) finding themselves very interested in raping black women (hence the zero rate). These same cultural influeces are the milieu in which the Duke lax players grew up. THAT is why those influences (for which the zero rate rape is a proxy) could be (in the absence of other evidence) suggestive as to why players who grew up in a (say) narrowminded “black girls aren’t hot” culture (as did many of the unanimous majority of American white dudes who en masse refrained from raping black girls in 2003) might also reasonably be hypothesized to have (likewise) not found the prospect of raping a black girl to be so hot. > > How hard is this to grasp? Do you think white men have changed in their “innate properties” since 1980? No? None of my buddies in the '80s dated any of the many oriental chicks in our town. Now (and based on my circle’s current anecdotal data) I can predict with a fair degree of accuracy that if a white male friend brings home a new girlfriend, there is a 25% chance she will be of Chinese or Vietnamese descent (which is significantly above the ratio of the Asian population in this area). I’d bet money on it at those odds (though of course I’d be wrong in some cases), and overall, I’d win. There is obviously no change in the innate DNA of these guys; but there are differentials (significant ones) as to what is or has become culturally common and acceptable and deemed attractive and desirable, and they serve a predictive (if not ultimately-probative) purpose in general and specific cases. In the same post you give this gem: > [@](#): > > As to your 1): Look at the statistics for how many white rape victims report their assailants to be black. I won’t quote them because that’s not what I was interested in, but suffice to say that any rape-minded black men do not seem to have a problem getting their paths to cross with white girls, be they never so geographically dispersed, as you suggest any rape-minded white men do in getting their paths to cross with black women. So what you appear to be saying is that black men loves them some white trim and will cross town to get some, but the DUKE players due their upbringing would most likely wouldn’t be attracted to black women, the same as **you and your friends**. That’s the underlying theme in this thread; **your** bias, your unspoken belief that it’s more ‘likely’ for a black man to rape a white woman, then white man to rape a black one, because white men aren’t aren’t attracted to them. Well then you ask, explain the stat. Simple, blacks are more prone to leave their neighbourhoods and come into contact with whites, then whites are to come into theirs. It has nothing to do with attractiveness, but promixity. The back alley stranger rape, is the exception; not the rule. Most woman are raped in their home, regardless of their skin color, or age or finances. What you consider to be matter of white boys not being "hot’ for black women, is simply your projection; your issues. In reality, the cause is another manifestion of the social segregation that we still have. The reason whites don’t appear to rape blacks, is not because they don’t want to, but because the opportunity doesn’t present itself. > [@](#): > > According to the Department of Justice (1997), about 40% of rapes occur in the survivor’s home, about 20% occur in the home of an acquaintance, 10% occur outside of the home, and only 8% occur in a parking structure. While there are places that are more safe than others and there are some places that should be avoided, it is obvious that dark alleys and other “scary” places are usually not where rapes occur. The DUKE case is classic in that it fullfills most of the ‘rules’, that would allow an interracial rape to occur; and still there’s plenty of reason to doubt her, race however isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1194 "2006-06-02T19:56:23Z")
Which part of “I won’t quote them” (which was my **only** even oblique reference or rather non-reference to the possible differential of white-on-black vs. black-on-white rape rates) do you have trouble understanding as not being a “quote” or reliance, let alone a “mantra,” of discussions of black-on-white rape incidence, you ignorant fuck? Seriously, ignorant fuck, if the thread is “full of” such “mantras,” ignorant fuck, you can provide multiple instances of my saying black men love raping some white women, you ignorant fuck. Instead of putting words in my mouth, ignorant fuck. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1195 "2006-06-02T20:06:52Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Who is the “they” that I posit? Well, any group of people who seem unduly attached to the notion of victimization or patterns of victimization which don’t necessarily exist, or who would tilt the scale in favor of a dubious (for whatever reason) accusation as against the rights of accuseds not to be improperly deprived of liberty, particularly when the scale-tipping is done for reasons of racial politics. > > I have posited that there is a continuum between the non-plausible allegations of Tawana Brawley some years ago and the dubious allegations in this case, and have drawn a link between the respective supporters (or as I have tendentiously called them, agitators) who in both cases loudly “spoke up” for the “victim.” YMMV and you may or may not be interested in my argument that far from ignoring rape or sexual violence against black women, our society is sufficiently solicitous of the need to prevent it that even less-than-plausible (no, not based on one data point, based on all of them in aggregate) allegations are given great play by prosecutors and the press. Again, YMMV, but that is the common theme I see in this case and the Brawley case. > > In this context: the “slavemaster” terminology of course came straight from the ever-helpful Rev. Jackson (I’ve quoted him upthread, invoking this specific lurid imagery re the Duke case). The “want to be raped” part came from the sick fact that Brawley herself is still (or at least was still, ten years after the fact) insisting that she had been raped, which in the face of what we all know is just about indistinguishable from “wanting to [have been] raped and to be believed.” (By the way, the “believed” part is inspired by Spike Lee’s “Tawana Told The Truth” tag in (I think) DTRT, which suggests to me that the emotional investment I posit some people as having in dubious claims was not just a fringe phenomenon, and I think it still exists). > > So to the extent that anyone here does not find or put themselves in what I call the Brawley continuum, does not view the comparative rarity of white on black rape as somehow depriving them of a politically-valuable chit (as opposed to being a fortunate thing), and does not sympathize with the Black Panthers who are menacing the “rapists,” and does not drink the Kool Aid of victims-never-lie, the hyperbolic remark wasn’t even inspired by or directed specifically at them. Well, that certainly clears things up!\* What about a person who seems unduly attached to the notion that White on Black rape is so extremely rare that he misreads DoJ statitics and makes the claim that there were 0 instances of such rape (actually, sexual assault, which is more generic) in the US in 2003? Perhaps if he hadn’t been so wedded to his own misinformed worldview, he would have looked at those stats with a more critical eye. Because I think anyone whose worldview is grounded in reality would dismiss such stastitics as obviously in error (or obviously misinterpreted). He certainly wouldn’t rush off to gleefully post them on a mesage board. \*a sarcastic remark, if anyone is wondering. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1196 "2006-06-02T20:08:19Z")
You can scream ignorant fuck, all you want to. I know you, I 've had 20+ pages to get to know you. Your disclaimers aren’t enough to cover you, your contribution to this whole thread is the mantra, buddy. You’re in the open now. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1197 "2006-06-02T20:09:14Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > You can scream ignorant fuck, all you want to. > > I know you, I 've had 20+ pages to get to know you. Your disclaimers aren’t enough to cover you, your contribution to this whole thread is the mantra, buddy. > > You’re in the open now. I thought that’s what you had, ignorant fuck. I.e., nothing. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1198 "2006-06-02T20:11:47Z")
Keep telling yourself that, perhaps you even believe it and that’s just sad. I see you as you are. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1199 "2006-06-02T20:20:42Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > I thought that’s what you had, ignorant fuck. I.e., nothing. yea, and yet somehow you managed to fill 20 pages w/it. amazing. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1200 "2006-06-02T20:22:55Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Because I think anyone whose worldview is grounded in reality would dismiss such stastitics as obviously in error (or obviously misinterpreted). Because (a) I stipulated many pages ago that I was placing no reliance on the DoJ statistics and unavailingly urged people to focus on my (many) other arguments if they didn’t like them; (b) the interpretation/criticism of the DoJ sampling/extarpoloation method that’s recently been posited and that I agree would weaken the value of the statistics likewise went unnoticed (and were not “obvious”) to a lot of other posters, and not just the ones supporting me; and © the NC statistics you more recently cited don’t support “vanishingly rare” but support “comparatively rare,” I don’t feel obliged to apologize for what was an en passant comment that (not through my wanting it to) took over the thread. Before I ever cited anything having to do with race, I cited false rape report incidence (a controversial issue in itself, I know) and prosecutorial misconduct, both of which I believe (and always believed) would have more relevance as data points than would race. > [@](#): > > He certainly wouldn’t rush off to gleefully post them on a mesage board. Nor did I, as you have no basis for imputing “glee” to me. In fact, I urged everyone who was having a cow over them to pretend they’d never existed, and this at a point before any meaningful methodological criticisms had been made of them, because **they weren’t that important to me.** Have I continued to react on occasion and say, no, I would not absolutely exclude any identifiable demographic patterns as ever possibly being a predictive data point, over n cases, assuming the state is a repeat player? Yes. But I also have been repeatedly and from an early date in this thread accused of or imputed with racism, fascism, and every other -ism under the Sun by the Godwinists and numerologists – still, I have not been the one posting the bulk of the verbiage on this issue in recent memory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=59) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=61)