TikToker Says the ‘Black People Can’t Swim’ Stereotype Stems From Historical Pool Exclusion  X Commenters Dispute the Framing 45%

By Reni50%

7/22/2026, 12:57:34 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 12.1% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 570 faulty-reasoning hits from 529 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.8% and a BS Rank of 45% (11,699 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.20% of the article peer group.

A woman tried to debunk a stereotype about black people and swimming and was schooled by the internet. 
She attributed lower swimming rates in Black communities to historical exclusion from public pools and swimming lessons. 
The Daily Dot was unable to uncover the original video on TikTok, but @iAnonPatriot shared the video on their X account. 
According to the video obtained by them, the woman brought up the previously mentioned assumption and asked if people had ever heard it before. 
Or if people wondered where the idea came from. 
First, the woman clarified that the statement “black people can’t swim” is untrue. 
She also mentioned that it came from history. 
She claimed that for centuries, there was a denial of access to many public pools, swimming lessons, and opportunities to learn water safety. 
Liberal white woman says black people cant swim because they were banned from pools over 80 years ago.. 
How long does it take to learn how to swim..!? 
pic.twitter.com/UDQKHS2Qxg 
- American AF ?? 
(@iAnonPatriot) July 21, 2026 
She said, “This was never about biology…” In text overlaid on the video, the woman mentioned that children belonging to the community weren’t drowning because of nature. 
Rather, it was because of the lack of access to the previously mentioned privileges. 
She concluded her video with a final statement: “When we ignore that history, we don’t just get the past wrong; we make it easier to explain away a family’s grief instead of meeting it with empathy.” 
Lastly, she added, “When we know the truth, it’s a little harder to dismiss someone’s loss.” 
The woman did not further clarify or explain herself in the video. 
But it did spark quite a response online. 
The Woman Tried to Debunk a Stereotype—The Internet Corrected Her Instead 
Her video has been viewed over 66,000 times on the verified X account, followed by multiple quotes and reshares of it. 
Several commenters disputed her account, sharing personal experiences as counterpoints. 
One verified X user, @GlennRemmington , responded to her video with his own experience. 
They described it as “weird.” 
The logic here is pretty wild. 
People have been learning to swim for generations now, regardless of history. 
It's almost like she’s trying to be helpful but it just comes off as super condescending. 
- Alex US (@Alexx_US) July 22, 2026 
He said, “I grew up in Southeast DC, the blackest, poorest areas in the country…Somehow, I still managed to both get into pools but also learned how to swim in them. 
Crazy!” 
Like this user, many others claimed she was incorrect in her statements. 
Another individual responded to the stereotypical claim addressed by the woman and said, “I’m a black man, and I can swim just fine…” 
Lastly, some called the woman’s logical claims “wild.” 
They said, “People have been learning to swim for generations now, regardless of history.” 
The Daily Dot was unable to independently locate the original TikTok video. 
The details above reflect the clip as shared on X by @iAnonPatriot. 
The identity of the woman in the video has not been confirmed. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.9%Reni: 4.0%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.0%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Reni: 4.2%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.7%dailydot.com: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Reni: 5.0%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.3%Reni: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.6%dailydot.com: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Reni: 8.3%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias9.1%This article: 5.9%Reni: 1.0%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Reni: 2.0%dailydot.com: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 3.8%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Reni: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.3%This article: 6.4%Reni: 0.9%dailydot.com: 2.0%Ad Hominem6.4%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.6%Reni: 1.7%dailydot.com: 2.3%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.2%Reni: 7.8%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.0%Reni: 4.2%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon4.0%This article: 9.8%Reni: 10.6%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.2%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.2%Reni: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.2%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.3%Reni: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.8%Burden of Proof4.3%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.1%Reni: 9.9%dailydot.com: 7.3%Anecdotal12.1%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.1%Reni: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.1%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.7%Reni: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity4.7%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.0%Reni: 3.1%dailydot.com: 4.9%Unattributed Quote6.0%This article: 3.4%Reni: 3.4%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 3.4%Reni: 3.6%dailydot.com: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice3.4%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 2.1%dailydot.com: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

529 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers12%attributed speech467writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage@iAnonPatriot • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage@GlennRemmington • 14 words • 0.0% coverage@GlennRemmington • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAlex US • 7 words • 0.0% coverage@GlennRemmington • 31 words • 0.0% coverage@GlennRemmington • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

@GlennRemmington

63%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words82% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-6.9 ptsWriter: 6.9%@GlennRemmington: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%@GlennRemmington: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%@GlennRemmington: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.