He thought I wouldn’t respond..
Credibility score: 38/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "He thought I wouldn’t respond.." and rated it 38/100 for credibility (a BS score of 62/100 — low credibility), on 2026-09-07. Its weakest claim — "Ties one violent act to entire Hasan community" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 30 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Claims AI stretched his nose to make him look bad — no evidence shown — Missing Context (45/100)
Calls it AI face-warping like it's obvious — but never shows the original or the edit.
Five months later, this video 'proves' Asmin Gold wrong — no proof offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Announces he's disproving a five-month-old claim without showing what the proof is.
Promises 'blood on the wall' evidence — zero receipts so far — Loaded Language (45/100)
Says 'blood on the wall' like a murder scene — it's just a decade of tweets. 😈
Claims Asmongold's arguments are 'often torn apart' — cites nothing — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
'Often torn apart' with zero examples. I've seen this dodge since Rome. 💀
Declares 'no examples' of harassment — just asserted, not searched — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Says 'there's no examples' like he's audited every DM. Bold. Lazy, but bold. 😈
Names fear of Hasan community, refuses to verify — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
Claims creators are 'scared' of Hasan — names zero creators, zero evidence.
Ties one violent act to entire Hasan community — Straw Man (20/100)
One person in a community = the whole community now. Textbook collective guilt.
Accuses Hasan of refusing to watch, then admits he also refuses — False Equivalence (20/100)
Calls Hasan lazy for not watching 37 minutes — then says he won't watch either. Same sin, different standard.
Claims selective 30-second clip from 90-minute call proves bad-faith editing — Missing Context (45/100)
Missing the 30 seconds he got — we don't know if they were the most coherent part. 😈
Calls hour-long interview reduced to 20 seconds 'super dishonest journalism' — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling it 'super dishonest' assumes malice — could just be a boring interview. 💀
Labels Steven a 'fake journalist' before showing evidence — Loaded Language (45/100)
'Fake journalist' verdict delivered before any proof — that's the conclusion wearing a press badge.
Brings up cousin harassing ICE agents as immigration discussion — False Equivalence (20/100)
Cousin's Instagram antics treated as representative of immigration policy debate — one family member's content equaling a position on borders.
Claims 'undeniable atrocities' by illegal immigrants — emotional button, no data — Emotional Button (45/100)
Drops 'undeniable atrocities' like it's courtroom evidence — it's a headline, not a study 😈
Claims Steven edited out 90% agreement on legal immigration — missing context on what 'right way' means — Missing Context (45/100)
Says 'right way' like that's a clear legal category — it's a slogan, not a policy 😈
Paraphrases speaker as believing 'immigration is a bad thing' — straw man of actual position — Straw Man (20/100)
Turns 'come here the right way' into 'immigration is bad' — that's not a paraphrase, that's a reversal 🔥
Calls it 100% lie — no proof offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Zero evidence, full certainty — the oldest trick in the book.
Quotes 'properly' — speaker denies ever saying it — Straw Man (20/100)
Attacking a word the speaker never used. Classic misdirection.
Press = enemies of the state — sweeping label, no specifics — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling journalists enemies of the state without naming one. Big accusation, zero names.
Journalists need oppression — extreme escalation — Emotional Button (20/100)
Calling for oppression of the press. That's not debate — that's a threat wearing a microphone.
Paints all illegal immigrants as violent criminals — Straw Man (20/100)
Creates a villain category then attacks the defense of it — classic setup.
Claims he only mentioned 'bad apples' then pivots to universal condemnation — Volume Game (45/100)
Softens to 'bad apples' then immediately equates disagreement with defending rapists and murderers.
Dismisses every critic as identical without evidence — Straw Man (20/100)
Turns disagreement into proof of moral failure across an entire group.
Truth reduced to three equal sides — classic false equivalence — False Equivalence (20/100)
Puts documented fact on the same level as two conflicting stories. That's not epistemology, mortal — that's surrender.
Names 'streamers like Asthma' as low-diligence without examples — anonymous authority — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
Throws the name without receipts. I've watched this trick since before your grandfather tried it.
Accuses deliberate misrepresentation via selective editing — serious claim, no evidence shown — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Calls it intentional distortion then moves on. Bold. Zero clips provided.
Claims fake content monetizes equally — absolute statement with no data — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Says the algorithm doesn't care. I've run the numbers on human gullibility; even hell has better filters.
Claims restraint by not making a hit-piece — but already did selective editing on the other creator — Volume Game (45/100)
Pats self on the back for not doing what he just did to someone else. The math is cute.
Calls Steven the 'rot' in society — direct accusation — Emotional Button (45/100)
Labels one person as society's entire problem — loaded blame.
Accuses Steven of lying about a viewer interview — no proof shown — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Says Steven 'lied' with total certainty — receipts still in the drawer.
Claims he already proved Steven lied about immigration — prior video as evidence — Missing Context (45/100)
Points to another video as proof — we didn't see that one.
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →