Patbrown had an issue with people taking issue with this:

"The fact that the woman in the Duke Lacrosse case was referred to as a "Lying Black Whore" upset everyone. I know she should have been referred to as a "Lying Black (Negro) Stripper" but since those words were chosen the whole article was discounted by all posters on this thread"

For me, it was not simply the use of that phrase, but that phrase was a window into which my critical eye could peer, so I used it as an example of what I found problematic throughout the article.

The phrase is a peculiar kind of sandwich, really. It starts and ends with words that are, by the dictionary, "true," but the first and third words are "true" in a way that is different from the way in which the second word is true.

For this reason, the phrase's connotations end up being "more" than the sum of its denotations.

When placed between the words "lying" and "whore," any word that singles out a group of people will tend to paint that entire group with the same brush. For instance, "that lying texan whore!" Or, "you lying republican whore!"

(I am using those terms as examples, meaning no malice whatsoever, but not without purpose.)

Is it true that the actual person being written about was:

lying? Evidently. black? Pretty clearly. a whore? Hard to refute (though I don't claim to know).

However, the phrase itself means something OTHER than the simple addition of the three words together. It implies something on the order of "well, the first and third words describe exactly what we'd expect from a person of that type."

The author of the piece is either aware of the implications of his wording, in which case he is revealed as a bigot, or he is unaware of those implications, in which case he is far from the sharpest carving knife in his wing of the shed.

(That blade is probably septic too. Best steer clear, and handle only with the long tongs.)

Herring405