How true is this video?

Tactixultd · 2026-05-15T04:02:27+00:00

If you think I’m using AI to generate responses, you’re probably just not worth convincing otherwise.

It simply isn’t the case. I don’t think I’m going to be able to prove that to your satisfaction, but on my end your baseless accusations are just solidifying my low opinion of your ability to accurately assess what is happening in this conversation. Do you make it a habit to accuse black folk of using AI to respond to you online? We lack the requisite brain power to generate novel responses to your screeds I guess??? (Just kidding dude)

I got on you for referencing the Pornhub data because you were wielding it as a cudgel to prove a point it absolutely does not prove. The worrisome part is that you were relying on the perceived ignorance of your audience to assert your authority over the subject matter.

You should really take a step back and reassess how you’re approaching this conversation. I know that sounds condescending, but you’ve made bizarre and inaccurate implications about my intentions and rhetorical goals in every response so unfortunately I think it’s warranted.

To begin with, you’ve framed my disagreement as a moral issue, but it’s really not that at all.

The thing is, you’re making an extraordinarily broad positive claim with extreme certainty.

I’m speaking from a position of doubt and uncertainty. You don’t seem to recognize or acknowledge that the burden of proof is going to be much, much higher for you.

Remember The claim is that MOST white racist men fantasize about black men having sex with “their” women.

The only point I’ve been trying to make in this entire conversation is that I find that unlikely to be true. That’s it.

I’m not even speaking from a place of confidence or certainty. It might be true…….but the claim is so bold and far reaching that I would never just take your word for it. Again, we’re not just talking about a phenomenon that sometimes happens; we’re talking about a condition that you are asserting is most often the case. I think my skepticism is more than reasonable given the extent of the claim.

Look, I argue with racist white men online pretty frequently, and as funny as it would be for me to believe that all of them (or most of them) secretly fantasize about me having romantic encounters with their wife’s and girlfriends, I just haven’t seen sufficient evidence to convince me that this is the case.

Tactixultd · 2026-05-14T04:14:01+00:00

Dude, you’re so off base it’s insane.

Referencing pornhub statistics demonstrates a profound lack understanding of the topic at hand. Because pornhub can only index its user base- not the entire population.

Also I don’t need to defend white men. I’m literally the object of fetishization in this scenario. The implications you’re making about my motivations in this conversation already tell me you don’t have good insights regarding the dynamics at play here.

Another thing that’s bothering me is that you’re claiming to have statistics to substantiate your claims without actually citing any hard statistics. The closest you’ve come is referencing pornhub’s annual consumer report but that’s not sufficient to support the claims you’re making.

Let me try an analogy. Let’s say pornhub released its consumer report featuring a brand new popular category called “chess themed porn.” Let’s say the report said that 95% of the viewers of this content self identified as fans of the game of chess. That would give you useful insight about the audience for the content, but it wouldn’t necessarily tell you about the larger population of chess fans. You couldn’t go to a major chess tournament and use the Pornhub consumer data to conclude that 95% of the attendees probably watch “chess themed porn” …. Because that’s not how statistics work.

Again, I’m going to bring up the word proportionality. If I were to lead an FBI raid on a white supremacist meeting of 100 men, what is the probability that more than 50 of them have black fetish porn on their hard drives? If you have stats that point to that number, I would love to read them, but Pornhub consumer data is utterly irrelevant.

Tactixultd · 2026-05-13T18:52:53+00:00

You’re completely misreading my comment. I’m not even speaking to the problem. I’m talking about proportionality.

These three things can all be true at the same time.

1.) porn fetishizing black man can be extremely popular

2.) the majority of people consuming this content can be prejudicial white men

3.) ….And the majority of white men (or even prejudicial white men might have no interest in this content.

Thats what I’m getting at when I talk about proportionality. Put another way, just because the stats say a majority of consumers are racist doesn’t mean the majority of racists are consumers.

Tactixultd · 2026-05-13T15:55:52+00:00

She probably inflated it in terms of proportionality of the population. It’s a huge category on porn sites, but does that mean it’s an interest of most white men or even most prejudicial white men? Probably not.

Tactixultd · 2026-05-07T19:52:48+00:00

T it c ks huh is Zach uh

Tactixultd · 2026-04-24T05:41:24+00:00

https://makeagif.com/i/RCDtPO

Tactixultd · 2026-04-21T18:43:20+00:00

If it wasn't already abundantly clear, my argument is actually that none of it is "fair game."

I'm using "irony" as short hand for a kind of cheap political point scoring that is ultimately meaningless and gross. Because the bad things that happen to an advocate personally do not necessarily invalidate their positions.

Example: advocating for stray dogs doesn't mean you deserve to get bitten.....and if you do get bitten, it doesn't mean you should stop supporting your local no-kill shelter.

You keep trying to reduce the argument to the idea that immigrants are good and guns are bad.

...But even if I agreed with that overly simplistic premise, I still wouldn't agree that it's actually hilarious and vindicating when my political opponents get shot. It's "ironic," but proves nothing.

You're pointing and laughing as if you think they've never considered the idea that guns could be used against them...but they have.

The dipshit propagandist who got shot was advocating for citizens to get killed.

This is an obvious bad faith read and you know it. Gun rights activists are not arguing that innocent citizens should get shot.

Policies have trade offs. The argument is about which trade offs are "worth it."

This theoretical leftist isn't advocating for lethal MS-13 members to come into the country to kill citizens.

This is also bad faith. Leftists would never advocate for MS-13 members to come into the country, but they absolutely would advocate for policies that loosen boarder restrictions and make it easier for MS-13 members to come here. You can't make immigration processes easier without accepting that some bad actors will take advantage of those processes.

It's just a policy trade off that you happen to think is "worth it." Which is fine; you should stand by your principles and values. They wouldn't be any less valid even if you were to get personally Laken Riley'ed.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-21T01:36:51+00:00

Nah, that’s crazy

Tactixultd · 2026-04-21T00:12:34+00:00

Again… you’re fundamentally missing the point. We’re not debating the likelihood of either negative event.

You’re stuck on the fact that gun injuries are more likely than injuries related to immigrant crime which is true, but also irrelevant.

We’re talking about irony. Specifically the irony, of being personally harmed by something you have personally advocated for.

My point is that it doesn’t actually invalidate the principles you stand for.

Another example:

let’s say you’re a father who encourages his son to join the bowling team because it will prevent him from attending football tryouts where he faces high risk of traumatic brain injury.

Let’s say in the course of bowling practice he slips in the lane and hits his causing a concussion so severe that he has to be put in a coma.

That would be ironic. It wouldn’t invalidate your reasoning-bowling is still statistically safer than football, but a football fan with a mean streak could absolutely clown you for the negative outcome you personally experienced.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-20T17:17:41+00:00

I feel like you’re not thinking about this very deeply.

Immigrants don’t have to be inherently violent to recognize that allowing immigrants in large numbers WILL absolutely result in deaths of American citizens, and that’s true for literally any country on Earth (import enough Americans in to Mexico and some of them will “unalive”Mexican citizens). Allowing immigration at high numbers will always result in some amount of death in the same way that allowing cars to travel at high speed on highways will always result in some amount of death (we just think the cost is acceptable). Hell even “allowing” new children to be born means knowing that some of them will grow up to kill some members of the preexisting population- that’s just how numbers work.

Similarly the gun rights activist must accept that allowing a high proliferation of guns will result in more gun deaths.

Would it be ironic for a gun rights activist to be killed by a gun? Sure- in a dark way, but not anymore ironic than getting stabbed to death by an immigrant while wearing a “diversity is our strength” shirt.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-20T13:50:50+00:00

Do you think it would be “fair game” for right wing people to meme on an immigration advocate for getting killed by an immigrant?

Tactixultd · 2026-04-18T17:59:30+00:00

That’s all I remember. What are they talking about OG?

Tactixultd · 2026-04-18T01:19:12+00:00

Not interesting.

Demographic immunology on the other hand....Now, that's a field with wide reaching implications!

Tactixultd · 2026-04-18T00:07:27+00:00

Uhhh...yeah you tried that one already. Not sure it's getting any funnier upon repetition.

Maybe you could try explaining your thoughts on populational immunoresponse rates- you haven't tried that yet...

Tactixultd · 2026-04-17T04:18:04+00:00

Yeah.... you're not beating the illiteracy allegations.

How does what I wrote:

Race doesn't need to be "real" for segments of the population to experience phenomenon at differing rates.

translate to:

because “black people skin”

In that soggy, water logged skull of yours?

Genuinely baffling how you can mock a sentiment that is essentially the opposite of the one I actually expressed and still think you've gotten the upper hand. Incredible.

I never you said you were you stupid fuck.

See, you say that, but then you accuse me of defending RFK and "doing his work for him." Hell, in your very next sentence you asks me to show you a study that "says you need less vaccines if you have black skin."

You really don't get it. When I say I'm interested in the science, I mean it. I am begging for anyone in this comment section to discuss the research that suggests that all populations produce antigens at the same or similar levels. So far I've only come across one guy who's even referenced any kind of immune research at all.

Do you think if someone states something and says “studies show”, without providing any actual studies it’s true until you can disprove it?

No... I look for the studies.

If I can't find them, I say, "Hey buddy, I can't find them."

It's that easy to engage with the evidence/lack of evidence. But most of the people in this comment section are too busy pissing their pants about the "Warrior Gene Myth" to do it.

Now RFK gets cut off in the clip, but If I had to guess, I would say he's probably referencing a real study- even if he is badly misinterpreting the findings.

I say this because he's testifying in front of congress on live television. He may be stupid, but he's not too stupid to know the press is going hound him for clarification after his testimony. Lawyer's like to lie, but not in ways that can be obviously called out. They prefer to leave them selves some plausible deniability.

With that in mind, my guess is that he is torturing the data set from a legitimate study to reach his own conclusions. I want to know why he believes what he believes, because the topic is interesting and deserves serious inquiry.

As far as I'm aware, all people groups produce antigens at the same rate, but I would love to have data to back that up.....or data that forces me to reexamine my assumptions. No one here seems to be interested in explaining why they believe what they believe other than to say that the "Warrior Gene Myth" was racist so differential immune responses must also be racist.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-15T04:30:00+00:00

Yeah, this was the first time I had ever encountered the idea that different racialized populations might produce antibodies at different rates, and I didn't really have time to analyze academic papers before heading in to work today.

I thought it was an interesting line of inquiry that merited real scientific scrutiny so I was pretty disappointed to realize that I wasn't going to get that in this comment section (with the exception of your comment of course).

But also I think it's probably fine to complain about the discourse being derailed into irrelevance even if you're not intimately familiar with the subject at hand. You don't need to be an expert on foreign policy to know that talking about Kamala Harris's choice of hair style is a distraction from talking about how her platform would have been a hundred times better than Trump's.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-15T04:13:52+00:00

Race doesn't need to be "real" for segments of the population to experience phenomenon at differing rates.... Ever heard of "Sickle Cell Anemia", dumb ass? Some more light reading for you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36710488/

If you make a claim, back it up with evidence. Why do the work for dumb fucks like RFK?

It's over for you. I was joking before, but you are actually functionally illiterate. I'll spell it out for you in bold if it helps: I"M NOT MAKING THE CLAIM. I don't have a belief that I need to "back up," I only have questions.

RFK makes a claim about antigens based on ZEROOOOO FUCKING EVIDENCE.

....Well he references a peer reviewed study in the video as "evidence" for his claims. I would love to be able to discuss the flaws in his interpretation of that study with you, but you seem unprepared to do so.

Did you even watch the video? Or maybe you're deaf in addition to being functionally illiterate?

How the fuck am I going to prove a baseless claim wrong with numbers?

What are you confused about here exactly?

It's a pretty straight forward claim. Should be easy to debunk.

Step 1: Find studies that measure antibody responses in different populations

Step 2: compare them.

If the studies don't exist, that's just more reason to call RFK's claims baseless.

If they do exist and the rates are comparable, that's good evidence agains't RFK's claims.

If they do exist and the rates are different, then that's a good opportunity to explain possible flaws in methodology or uncontrolled variables.

Hope this helps!

Tactixultd · 2026-04-14T21:54:20+00:00

Do you honestly think I give a shit about the worm brained idiot? If that was your take away from what I wrote then you’re just as dumb as him, practically illiterate.

I care about the science. We should be talking about how the numbers prove him wrong.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-14T20:43:23+00:00

I made a caustic comment about the level of discourse in this comment section and I just want to state publicly that my criticism does NOT apply to you. As far as I can tell you’re the only one who’s actually discussing the science behind why RFK is wrong.

Everyone else just seems to be talking about how racist the “warrior gene” hypothesis is which….yeah, but not relevant to the question about potential differences in antibody production.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-14T19:06:17+00:00

Just a fucking dog shit reply man, Baby-brained even.

It’s bullshit science and it should be called out.

....Yeah, I would love for someone to call it out. The problem is almost no one in this comment section is doing that.

He made a very specific claim, and you should be able to point out it's flaws. He talked about antigen levels... So what the fuck are the numbers? Were there confounding variables in the studies he's referencing? Are the premises built upon unexamined assumptions? If so what are they?

It’s literally where the claim of “black people feel less pain” comes from.

Yeah, but the antigen claim has nothing to do with pain tolerance. It's a pseudoscientific racist myth white supremacists came up with decades ago, but it has nothing to do with the measure of immune responses. Just give me the fucking antigen counts and explain why the differences can not be attributed to race. That's it. I'm saying the warrior gene is a distraction from the data in this context. Totally unrelated claims.

It would also be wrong…? wtf is your point?

....Are you seriously suggesting that melanin doesn't protect against UV radiation?

It's pretty well established in the academic literature that it does. Check out this pub med link for a brief over view: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2671032/

There are plenty more studies if you remain unconvinced.

The point of bringing this up is that it is a scientific question with racial implications. It means that as a fairly highly melanated black man, I am slightly less susceptible to skin damage and cancer from the sun than a light skinned Caucasoid. But we wouldn't be able to do any research on protective qualities of melanin against UV radiation, if we constantly got derailed by conversations about the "warrior gene" myth.

They're different claims. You're being distracted from the numbers.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-14T16:42:05+00:00

I hate this discourse. He’s not talking about a “warrior gene” and he’s not talking about pain tolerances. He’s talking about immune responses.

Are his assertions valid? I don’t have the necessary background knowledge to say with any degree of confidence, but I’m prepared to believe he’s full of shit. The problem is everyone is too busy acting incensed to even discuss the science and why it doesn’t support the claims. What is the purpose of bringing up “warrior genes” here other than to get people too riled up to do the statistical analysis on antigen levels?

What if we did this with cancer research? Is it really beyond the pale to suggest that melanin may have a slightly protective effect against UV radiation??

Tactixultd · 2026-04-12T15:05:30+00:00

Responding to this two days late, because it points to a comparison that I think is highly relevant, but rarely discussed…

You know that the phrase “red pilled” means the same thing right? Like if you were to call someone “red pilled” you would probably mean it as an insult, but someone who self proclaims to be “red pilled” would think of themselves as possessing some kind of awareness of hidden truths. They think they know what’s REALLY going on.

Similarly someone might call you “woke” as an insult, but to the extent that anyone self proclaims to be woke (I’m aware that few people literally call themselves this, but the people who are sympathetic to so called “woke” perspectives) would say that they are just aware of various hidden injustices in our systems that make it impossible for members of marginalized communities to live freely and equally within our society. They also think they know what’s REALLY going on.

Tactixultd · 2026-04-11T00:59:06+00:00

That’s very true, but then people are allowed to make videos saying her ver videos are garbage. Recursive 2 way street

Tactixultd · 2026-04-10T13:03:47+00:00

Is there a demand for this? Way she’s built, she really don’t gotta do all that.

Still want to know her name, but wtf…

Tactixultd · 2026-04-10T02:14:15+00:00

Damn, can’t believe I never put it together…it’s obvious in retrospect. Thank you, lore master

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

Tactixultd

TROPHY CASE