That Time The Batman Subreddit Lost Their Minds
Credibility score: 31/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "That Time The Batman Subreddit Lost Their Minds" and rated it 31/100 for credibility (a BS score of 69/100 — low credibility), on 2026-09-10. Its weakest claim — "Rapid-fire 'is he stupid?' meme loop framing every question as idiocy" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as volume game. 17 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 17 claims analyzed: 11 scored under 40, 6 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:04
Teaser montage of the 'is he stupid?' meme template — no actual claim yet.
Why this score: This first 30 seconds is just a rapid montage of the recurring subreddit joke. The speaker isn't making a factual argument here; they're just showing the meme format they'll be unpacking later. Classic YouTube intro technique — drop the hook first, save the context for when the real segment starts.
Original quote: “[0:04] r/ Batman Arkham.
[0:09] Why doesn't Batman just call the Justice
[0:11] League for help? Is he stupid?
[0:17] Why doesn't Spider-Man just call the
[0:18] Avengers for help? Is he stupid? Why is
[0:21] KSI trying to beef with Dan TDM? Is he
[0:24] stupid? Doesn't he know that…”
Rapid-fire 'is he stupid?' meme loop framing every question as idiocy — Volume Game (20/100)
At 0:30
Repeats the same loaded question 20+ times to manufacture absurdity — quantity over quality.
Why this score: By hammering the identical rhetorical question back-to-back, the speaker turns every minor inconsistency into proof of stupidity. A neutral framing would ask 'why does this happen?' instead of 'is he stupid?' — the loaded phrasing steers viewers to laugh at the character rather than consider in-universe explanations.
Original quote: “can always just hire a new CEO? Is he stupid? Why does [ __ ] bonds wear a glove on his metal arm but not on his real hand that would need it more? Is he stupid? Why does coming a Gordor change actors in every game? Is he stupid?”
Claims Arkham Knight has zero in-universe Arkham connection — missing the actual backstory — Missing Context (45/100)
At 1:37
Speaker admits 'as far as I know' then states it as fact — classic confidence mismatch.
Why this score: The framing presents incomplete knowledge as authoritative. A fair version would say 'I don't recall a connection' rather than 'there isn't one.' Commenters later note Jason Todd was abandoned at Arkham, which directly contradicts the claim but isn't addressed here.
Original quote: “Is there a law reason why he's called the Arkham Knight? Cuz as far as I know, he has no relation to anything Arkham besides the franchise he's in.”
Jumps from fictional nitpicks to real medical trauma for the same punchline — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 1:48
Equates 'Batman doesn't use guns' with 'I got cancer' under the same 'is he stupid?' bit — wildly uneven stakes.
Why this score: The speaker uses the same rhetorical device for video-game lore questions and serious personal health issues. A neutral approach would separate the silly from the serious rather than flattening both into identical joke templates. This risks trivializing actual medical experiences for the sake of the meme.
Original quote: “Is there a law reason why I'm so damn bad for her? ... Is there a law reason why I had a seizure? Am I stupid? Is there a law reason why I got cancer? Am I stupid?”
Asking 'law reason' for random Batman plot holes — loaded language bit — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:32
Repeating 'law reason' turns nonsense questions into a running gag — the word choice itself is the joke.
Why this score: The speaker isn't actually claiming there's a legal reason for these absurd scenarios; they're using the phrase 'law reason' as absurdist repetition. This is a deliberate framing choice where the joke lives in the language itself rather than the content. The repetition creates comedy through the contrast between the serious-sounding phrase and the ridiculous questions being asked.
Original quote: “Is there a law reason why Batman hates George? [laughter] Is there a law reason why Bruce loses the Chadaw?”
Assigning 'deep philosophical reason' to obvious shitpost — false equivalence framing — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 2:50
Treating a meme photo like it has hidden meaning sets up the gag — the framing pretends nonsense is profound.
Why this score: This is classic false equivalence where the speaker frames a clearly absurd image (Batman and Joker about to have sex) as potentially containing 'deep philosophical' or 'little reason.' The framing works because it mimics how people overanalyze media, but applied to something deliberately ridiculous. The joke depends on the audience recognizing this mismatch between the elevated language and the low-brow content.
Original quote: “What's the deep philosophical reason why he is called the junkler? Is there a little reason why man and junkler are about to have sex in this photo?”
Repeating 'new character' bit until it breaks — volume game technique — Volume Game (45/100)
At 3:05
Same line repeated until funny — comedy through sheer persistence, not cleverness.
Why this score: This is a volume game where the humor comes from the speaker saying essentially the same thing over and over until the repetition itself becomes the joke. The speaker isn't developing the premise or adding new information; they're relying on the audience's growing discomfort/amusement with the lack of progress. It's a meta-commentary on how internet humor often works through exhaustion rather than wit.
Original quote: “I've just invented this new character. What do I call him? Well, I've just got a new character. Uh, what's his name? I just created a new character. What should I name him? Just created a new character. What the [ __ ] should we call it?”
Repeating 'nine months ago' as absurd punchline — Volume Game — Volume Game (20/100)
At 4:30
Same joke hammered 8 times in 30 seconds — the repetition IS the joke.
Why this score: They're not making a point; the humor is literally just saying the same nonsense over and over until it becomes surreal. This is the 'repeat until funny' technique. The joke isn't in the content, it's in how many times they can say 'nine months ago' before your brain breaks. A neutral version would just say it once and move on.
Original quote: “I [__] nine months ago. Why is he [__] singing? I [__] nine months ago when this came out.”
9-month-old baby named after subreddit joke — birth metaphor overload — Volume Game (20/100)
At 4:30
Repeats the same birth joke 15 times like volume replaces wit — the bit is doing laps.
Why this score: The speaker's framing relies on sheer repetition of the 'someone [ ] 9 months ago' template. Instead of developing the joke, they hammer the same premise until it becomes the joke itself. The neutral alternative would be one well-crafted iteration instead of this recursive loop that treats quantity as comedy.
Original quote: “man? I [ __ ] nine months ago. Why is he [ __ ] singing? I [ __ ] nine months ago when this came out. What the [ __ ] should I call it? I [ __ ] 9 months ago. What should I name it? The [ __ ] 9 months ago. What should he name it? I [ __ ] 3 months ago. What the [ __ ] should I name this [ __ ] I […”
Adding 'evil' to the same joke — Volume Game — Volume Game (20/100)
At 5:08
Just inserting 'evil' into the formula — still the same joke structure, no new content.
Why this score: This is the point where the joke starts eating itself. They're not evolving the premise, just adding adjectives to the same template. The 'evil' variation shows they've run out of actual variations and are now just modifying words. This is the 'repeat until funny' technique hitting its natural limit.
Original quote: “I evilly [__] nine evil months ago. What the [__] should I evilly name my evil son?”
Calling out subreddit repetition while doing the exact same thing — self-own in progress — Straw Man (25/100)
At 5:15
Accuses others of looping the same joke while delivering the 200th variation of 'brain rot' — mirror, mirror.
Why this score: The speaker positions themselves as the voice of reason against repetitive humor, yet their entire segment is built on recycling the same 'this sub is cooked' argument that's been made since the subreddit went mad. The straw man is pretending the community thinks their repetition is high art when really everyone knows it's low-effort chaos — including the people participating in it.
Original quote: “Stop posting. You aren't insane. You're just cringe. Grow up. Am I the only one who realizes this place isn't dank? You guys are literal cornballs. It's the same three jokes on loop. It wasn't funny the first time and it's definitely not funny the 200th time. You act like that little bit of goop…”
Random nonsense escalating — Volume Game — Volume Game (20/100)
At 5:44
Complete gibberish now — the joke has officially left the building.
Why this score: This is where the repetition strategy completely collapses. They've moved from 'nine months ago' to random word salad with no connection to the original premise. This is what happens when you rely on repetition as your only comedic tool — eventually you run out of variations and just start saying whatever comes to mind. The joke is now officially 'we're saying random things.'
Original quote: “Why does he wear VR? Is he playing Manham Owl? Log by Bulb. Their gender. I was just born.”
Meta-commentary calling out the subreddit — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:05
Calling the subreddit 'cringe' while participating in the exact same humor — the irony is the point.
Why this score: This is the classic 'I'm not like other girls' move in meme communities. The speaker is doing the exact same repetitive, nonsensical humor they've been doing for the entire segment, then turning around and calling everyone else cringe for doing it. They're participating in the 'brain rot' they claim to hate. A fair framing would acknowledge that the speaker is part of the same culture they're criticizing.
Original quote: “Stop posting. You aren't insane. You're just cringe. Grow up. Am I the only one who realizes this place isn't dank?”
Uses 'wife's boyfriend' cuck meme — emotional button — Emotional Button (30/100)
At 6:30
Deploys the 'wife's boyfriend' insult to trigger shame. Zero argument, just shock value.
Why this score: The speaker weaponizes an internet humiliation trope to attack the poster personally rather than engaging with the content. This emotional button is designed to make viewers recoil at the imagined cuckoldry instead of judging the actual post. A fair framing would critique the joke itself, not the poster's supposed sexual status.
Original quote: “Honestly, did your wife's boyfriend give you permission to post this cringe today?”
Dismisses meme as outdated via loaded insult — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 6:31
Uses 'wife's boyfriend' trope as instant character attack instead of engaging the meme
Why this score: Classic emotional button play — framing the poster as both pathetic and behind the times so the audience laughs at them instead of evaluating the actual meme. The joke lands because of the insult, not the argument.
Original quote: “Honestly, did your wife's boyfriend give you permission to post this cringe today? Go outside. The man meme died years ago.”
dismisses meme as 'cringe' using tired 'wife's boyfriend' trope — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (35/100)
At 6:31
Uses sexual humiliation trope to delegitimize content — classic ad hominem shortcut.
Why this score: Instead of critiquing the actual joke structure, the speaker reaches for the 'cuck' insult to shame the poster. This frames the entire subreddit as sexually inadequate rather than just having stale memes. The alternative would be 'this format feels overused' — which doesn't carry the same emotional sting.
Original quote: “Honestly, did your wife's boyfriend give you permission to post this cringe today? Go outside. The man meme died years ago.”
reduces community to 'TikTok kids' — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:45
Ignores that the 'insanity' evolved from specific in-jokes about Arkham games, not TikTok migration.
Why this score: The subreddit's 'brainrot' style actually started with posts like 'do you agree with Batman's no killing rule' → 'no parents rule' long before TikTok trends. By calling them TikTok kids, the speaker erases the actual origin story and makes the humor seem like it was imported rather than homegrown. The honest framing would acknowledge it's native Reddit absurdism that happens to resemble TikTok brainrot.
Original quote: “It's the same three jokes on loop. You guys aren't insane. You're just Tik Tok kids or wannabe dank who found a Batman filter.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →