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. 47 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 47 claims analyzed: 13 scored under 40, 34 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Claims AI stretched his nose to make him look bad — no evidence shown — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:00
Calls it AI face-warping like it's obvious — but never shows the original or the edit.
Why this score: He's accusing someone of malicious editing without proving the AI manipulation happened, skipping the part where you'd actually demonstrate the change.
Original quote: “So, this is a fat [ __ ] that made a video about me to try to make me look bad. I was going to watch it, but I got busy and I didn't have time. Also, I want to say that you might not notice this, but he AI changed my face here. He AI changed my face to make my nose longer. My nose isn't that long.…”
Five months later, this video 'proves' Asmin Gold wrong — no proof offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:21
Announces he's disproving a five-month-old claim without showing what the proof is.
Why this score: He frames the existence of this video as automatic proof, but never connects the content to the original accusation. It's a victory lap before the race starts.
Original quote: “Five months ago, Asmin Gold said on his stream that I don't do my research and none of his fans would ever talk to me. Today I prove him wrong. Video is out on my”
Promises 'blood on the wall' evidence — zero receipts so far — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:46
Says 'blood on the wall' like a murder scene — it's just a decade of tweets. 😈
Why this score: Loaded metaphor doing the heavy lifting. 'Blood smeared' implies violence or scandal, but the transcript shows no actual evidence presented — just a promise of future dirt. The framing turns ordinary history into something sinister without showing what that 'blood' actually is.
Original quote: “I did a little research a talk on Asminingold and made a collage on how he's lived over the past decade. See if you can find the blood smeared on the wall.”
Claims Asmongold's arguments are 'often torn apart' — cites nothing — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 1:18
'Often torn apart' with zero examples. I've seen this dodge since Rome. 💀
Why this score: Anonymous authority dressed as observation. 'Often' sounds like a pattern, but no specific debates, critics, or instances are named. The claim does the work of evidence while providing none — classic move when the speaker wants to sound informed without receipts.
Original quote: “So, do we we don't even have a single instance of this person that actually has from what I've seen as doesn't like his worldview uh tested because his arguments are often torn apart.”
Declares 'no examples' of harassment — just asserted, not searched — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:02
Says 'there's no examples' like he's audited every DM. Bold. Lazy, but bold. 😈
Why this score: Absolute claim delivered with zero methodology. 'No examples' requires exhaustive search to be true, yet the speaker presents it as settled fact after glancing at a screen. The confidence exceeds the visible evidence — exactly the mismatch that makes mortals nod along without checking.
Original quote: “And so, we've got more of this. And and do we have any examples? There's no examples of anybody being harassed by Hassan's fan base. This is it. There's no examples.”
Names fear of Hasan community, refuses to verify — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 2:38
Claims creators are 'scared' of Hasan — names zero creators, zero evidence.
Why this score: Uses 'a handful of communities' as cover for an unverified rumor. Hides behind 'I'm not saying it's true' while still spreading the claim. Classic anonymous authority move.
Original quote: “there are a handful of communities that they're really scared of and Hassans is one of them. I'm not saying that that's justified or not justified. I'm not saying it's true or not true but just from whatever reason right”
Ties one violent act to entire Hasan community — Straw Man (20/100)
At 3:06
One person in a community = the whole community now. Textbook collective guilt.
Why this score: Uses a single criminal act to paint an entire audience as dangerous. Ignores that every large community has bad actors. The framing weaponizes one incident to justify fear of millions.
Original quote: “and here's another example of Hassan's community harassing people so this is somebody in Hassan's community that shot a police officer with a gun in real life”
Accuses Hasan of refusing to watch, then admits he also refuses — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 3:38
Calls Hasan lazy for not watching 37 minutes — then says he won't watch either. Same sin, different standard.
Why this score: Builds a case against Hasan for skipping content, then immediately admits he does the exact same thing. The hypocrisy collapses the moral high ground he just claimed.
Original quote: “As will gladly misrepresent my points and spread misinfo spread by fed by his chat, but he won't watch the video. I've been It's a 37 minute video, Stephen. Like, you know, I I I don't want to watch a 37 minute video. I hate watching long videos.”
Claims selective 30-second clip from 90-minute call proves bad-faith editing — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:53
Missing the 30 seconds he got — we don't know if they were the most coherent part. 😈
Why this score: He's presenting the length disparity as automatic proof of manipulation, but never shows what those 30 seconds actually contained. Without the original context or the questions he claims were asked, the 'clipped mid-thought' accusation is impossible to verify from this alone. The framing treats any heavy editing as inherently dishonest, skipping the possibility that the usable material simply wasn't there.
Original quote: “I dropped into Asmin Gold's chat to confirm that the biggest fans video from Steven Azark was in bad faith a hit piece. I am in Steven's video under the alias Zenbane and only some 30 seconds of my words were used out of a 90inute long Discord conversation and a few sound bites of mine that were…”
Calls hour-long interview reduced to 20 seconds 'super dishonest journalism' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 5:58
Calling it 'super dishonest' assumes malice — could just be a boring interview. 💀
Why this score: The emotional escalation from 'they used 20 seconds' to 'super dishonest journalism' skips the middle step: proving the omitted material would have changed the story. Heavy editing happens in every interview; the dishonesty claim needs evidence that the cut parts contradicted the narrative, not just that they existed.
Original quote: “He left out a lot to spend for over an hour and he clipped 20 seconds. Super dishonest journalism.”
Labels Steven a 'fake journalist' before showing evidence — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 6:30
'Fake journalist' verdict delivered before any proof — that's the conclusion wearing a press badge.
Why this score: Calling someone a 'fake journalist' upfront sets the frame that everything they say is suspect, turning the upcoming evidence into confirmation rather than investigation. The label does the heavy lifting before the transcript even plays.
Original quote: “I wouldn't give him that much credit. This is the first of many volumes where I will expose the blatant and intentional lies of the fake journalist Steven Azark.”
Brings up cousin harassing ICE agents as immigration discussion — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 7:39
Cousin's Instagram antics treated as representative of immigration policy debate — one family member's content equaling a position on borders.
Why this score: A relative posting confrontational videos with ICE is being positioned as a data point in a national immigration conversation. The leap from one person's social media to a coherent policy stance is doing work that actual polling or voting records would normally carry.
Original quote: “During my answer, I discussed several factors. I talked about my cousin who has an Instagram page dedicated entirely to videos that he uploads of himself harassing ICE agents.”
Claims 'undeniable atrocities' by illegal immigrants — emotional button, no data — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:39
Drops 'undeniable atrocities' like it's courtroom evidence — it's a headline, not a study 😈
Why this score: Loaded language doing the heavy lifting. No specific incidents, numbers, or sources — just the phrase 'women and children' plus 'illegal immigrants' to trigger the reaction. Real atrocities would have names, dates, locations.
Original quote: “>> against women and children by illegal immigrants.”
Claims Steven edited out 90% agreement on legal immigration — missing context on what 'right way' means — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:21
Says 'right way' like that's a clear legal category — it's a slogan, not a policy 😈
Why this score: The 'right way' framing sounds reasonable until you ask what it actually means in practice. Temporary protected status, asylum claims, family sponsorship — all legal pathways that get called 'illegal' depending on who's talking. The 90% edit claim might be true, but it doesn't tell you whether the original conversation defined 'right way' the same way the audience hears it now.
Original quote: “>> Yet, in Steven's final cut of his anti-asminote hit piece, not only does he edit out over 90% of what we discussed, he edits out the part where he and I agree that immigrants should come here the right way.”
Paraphrases speaker as believing 'immigration is a bad thing' — straw man of actual position — Straw Man (20/100)
At 9:51
Turns 'come here the right way' into 'immigration is bad' — that's not a paraphrase, that's a reversal 🔥
Why this score: The transcript shows the speaker explicitly agreeing immigrants should come, just through legal channels. Steven's version flips that into blanket opposition. This isn't editing for length — this is editing to create the opposite position. The fourth-generation detail makes it sting more because it implies even legal immigrants reject immigration entirely.
Original quote: “>> The second one was a fourth generation Mexican immigrant who believes that immigration is a bad thing.”
Calls it 100% lie — no proof offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:31
Zero evidence, full certainty — the oldest trick in the book.
Why this score: Absolute language with zero receipts. I've watched mortals call things 100% without a single fact since before your species learned to write.
Original quote: “Straight up lying 100%.”
Quotes 'properly' — speaker denies ever saying it — Straw Man (20/100)
At 10:43
Attacking a word the speaker never used. Classic misdirection.
Why this score: The original claim was about paperwork and legal status. Adding 'properly' in air quotes creates a target that didn't exist. Fighting ghosts is easy when you invent them.
Original quote: “What a little said his great great great grandmother was a school teacher in Mexico and she came here properly.”
Press = enemies of the state — sweeping label, no specifics — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 11:58
Calling journalists enemies of the state without naming one. Big accusation, zero names.
Why this score: When you paint an entire institution as the enemy, you need receipts. Instead we get a blanket condemnation. That's how you manufacture villains without evidence.
Original quote: “The press and people that pretend to be journalists are enemies of the state. They are. They're enemies of the country.”
Journalists need oppression — extreme escalation — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 12:12
Calling for oppression of the press. That's not debate — that's a threat wearing a microphone.
Why this score: This isn't criticism. This is advocating state violence against people who report facts you don't like. I've watched this exact move since the first king tried to silence the town crier.
Original quote: “They legit need oppression.”
Paints all illegal immigrants as violent criminals — Straw Man (20/100)
At 12:30
Creates a villain category then attacks the defense of it — classic setup.
Why this score: Speaker defines illegal immigrants as 'criminals who commit heinous crimes against women and children' then implies anyone who pushes back is defending that group. Real debate is about whether immigration status correlates with crime rates, not whether rapists should be allowed to stay.
Original quote: “about illegal immigrants who are also criminals and come here to perform extremely heinous crimes against women and children”
Claims he only mentioned 'bad apples' then pivots to universal condemnation — Volume Game (45/100)
At 12:48
Softens to 'bad apples' then immediately equates disagreement with defending rapists and murderers.
Why this score: Opens with the narrow claim — 'I only criticized criminal immigrants' — then demands viewers answer whether rapists are bad. The move forces anyone who questions the framing into the position of defending monsters. Actual debate never happens.
Original quote: “This is the only reference I made to bad apples. Never once did I try to portray all illegal immigrants as being inherently bad. But I will ask you viewers and listeners, do you consider criminals who perform both vile and heinous crimes against women and children to be a problem in society?”
Dismisses every critic as identical without evidence — Straw Man (20/100)
At 13:32
Turns disagreement into proof of moral failure across an entire group.
Why this score: Any pushback gets labeled as 'defense of criminals' and then generalized to 'they're all like this.' No need to address specific arguments when the whole opposing side can be painted as liars protecting monsters.
Original quote: “They're all like this, by the way. All of these people that are trying to run defense and attack me this way, they're all like this”
Truth reduced to three equal sides — classic false equivalence — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 14:40
Puts documented fact on the same level as two conflicting stories. That's not epistemology, mortal — that's surrender.
Why this score: This framing treats objective evidence as just another 'side.' It erases the possibility that one account can be verified while the other cannot, and hands every liar the same credibility as the truth-teller.
Original quote: “there's no way to know what the truth is anymore. There's her side, his side, and the truth.”
Names 'streamers like Asthma' as low-diligence without examples — anonymous authority — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 14:53
Throws the name without receipts. I've watched this trick since before your grandfather tried it.
Why this score: The accusation lands on a specific creator but offers zero instances of the claimed sloppiness. Listeners are expected to accept the pattern on faith.
Original quote: “streamers like Asthma muddy those waters even more by sharing this information with the smallest amount of let's not say facteing, let's say due diligence.”
Accuses deliberate misrepresentation via selective editing — serious claim, no evidence shown — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:16
Calls it intentional distortion then moves on. Bold. Zero clips provided.
Why this score: The charge is heavy — deliberate bad-faith editing — yet the segment contains no side-by-side comparison, timestamp, or transcript to demonstrate the supposed misrepresentation.
Original quote: “selectively editing his own videos in order to make me look bad by interviewing people that are my viewers and then misrepresenting what they say”
Claims fake content monetizes equally — absolute statement with no data — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:32
Says the algorithm doesn't care. I've run the numbers on human gullibility; even hell has better filters.
Why this score: Platforms demonstrably demonetize or limit reach for repeated misinformation. The blanket claim ignores both policy and the long-term audience attrition that follows exposed fabrication.
Original quote: “content makes money regardless of if it is real or not. The only garbage”
Claims restraint by not making a hit-piece — but already did selective editing on the other creator — Volume Game (45/100)
At 16:09
Pats self on the back for not doing what he just did to someone else. The math is cute.
Why this score: He condemns out-of-context clips while admitting he aired selectively edited interviews of the other creator's viewers — exactly the sin he claims to rise above.
Original quote: “It would have been easy for me to make an Asthma Gold video where I just called him a poopy [__] and posted all the dumb clips out of context”
Calls Steven the 'rot' in society — direct accusation — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 17:12
Labels one person as society's entire problem — loaded blame.
Why this score: Instead of addressing specific lies or evidence, the speaker pins the whole 'rot' of information distrust on one journalist. That's not analysis, that's a target painted on a single chest.
Original quote: “You are the rot, Stephen. >> The rot is coming from you.”
Accuses Steven of lying about a viewer interview — no proof shown — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 17:18
Says Steven 'lied' with total certainty — receipts still in the drawer.
Why this score: The claim is serious: deliberate misrepresentation. But the speaker hasn't shown the original interview, the edit, or the alleged lie — just the conclusion. Confidence before evidence.
Original quote: “So, this guy straight up tried to interview one of my viewers. totally reframed and lied about what he said.”
Claims he already proved Steven lied about immigration — prior video as evidence — Missing Context (45/100)
At 17:50
Points to another video as proof — we didn't see that one.
Why this score: The speaker says 'I exposed' in a previous video. Without that context, we're asked to accept this claim on trust. The immigration stance is stated clearly here, but the alleged lie from Steven isn't shown.
Original quote: “In the first video, I exposed Ben's lies about my views on immigration, where I explicitly told Steven that I fully support legal immigration”
Says Steven deleted pro-legal-immigration comments — deletion as proof of bad faith — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 18:05
Deletion equals 'falsely claim' — assumes motive, skips the edit log.
Why this score: Deleting comments could be moderation, error, or malice. The speaker jumps straight to 'falsely claim' without showing what Steven actually published or proving intent.
Original quote: “Yet, Steven deleted all of that in order to falsely claim that I am against immigration”
Accuses Asmon of deliberate lying via selective editing — Missing Context (45/100)
At 19:34
Claims Asmon 'chooses to lie' — that's intent, not just omission. Heavy accusation with zero receipts shown.
Why this score: He frames selective editing as intentional deception rather than standard clip selection. The accusation of lying requires evidence of Asmon's state of mind, which isn't provided here. Could be bad editing, could be malice — the jump to 'lie' does the work.
Original quote: “not only does he ignore it all in his final edit, instead of playing my audio clips where I state all of this, he chooses to lie and claim that I said the literal opposite”
Generalizes millions of viewers as echo-chamber dwellers — Straw Man (20/100)
At 19:43
Turns one alleged bad edit into proof that 'average Asmongold fan' wants an echo chamber. That's millions of people indicted from one clip.
Why this score: Classic overgeneralization — one person's experience with one creator's edit becomes evidence that an entire audience seeks confirmation bias. The 'average fan' claim is doing heavy lifting with no data behind it.
Original quote: “What I learned is that the average Asmongold fan just wants to live in their own echo chamber”
Frames Asmongold's influence as inherently harmful regardless of content — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 20:14
Equates 'influences many people' with 'bad for society' — influence itself isn't the problem, it's what gets influenced toward.
Why this score: The logic here is that reaching many people with any view is suspect. By that standard, every large platform, every popular creator, every widely-read author is 'bad for society.' The framing makes reach itself the villain rather than specific harmful claims.
Original quote: “Steven believes Asmongold is bad for society because Asmongold influences a large number of people by sharing his views, even if those views include misinformation”
Accuses Steven of secretly wanting Asmongold's influence — no evidence offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 20:30
Calls it 'the real problem' like he read Steven's mind — zero receipts for that motive 😈
Why this score: The speaker asserts Steven's hidden desire for influence as established fact rather than speculation. No transcript evidence or Steven quote supports the mind-reading. Classic 'I know what you really think' move that skips the step of showing why.
Original quote: “and I accuse Steven during our first call of not really having a problem with the things Asmin Gold is doing. Instead, Steven's real problem is that he himself is no different than Asmin Gold and he wishes that he could influence a large number of people”
Labels Steven's videos 'lies' then immediately calls out his own prediction — no examples given — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 20:53
Drops 'lies' like it's proven, then pivots to bragging he predicted it — still no specific falsehoods named 🔥
Why this score: The speaker uses the word 'lies' repeatedly while providing zero examples of actual false statements. The move is to establish moral high ground through accusation first, evidence later (or never). The timing of his prediction is irrelevant if the underlying claim isn't demonstrated.
Original quote: “So, all of these lies that Steven is releasing in his Asongold and Hassan videos is something I called out early on. And as of this moment, Steven has released a two plus hour video reacting to both Asmongold and my first video where I spoke out against these lies”
Calls him a 'propagandist' and 'clown' while refusing to say it — then says it anyway — Volume Game (45/100)
At 21:41
'I won't say it' → immediately says it louder. The fake reluctance is doing the heavy lifting here 💀
Why this score: The speaker performs reluctance ('I won't say what I think') then immediately delivers the harshest label possible. The rhetorical move is to appear measured while actually escalating. The 'decade as journalist' credential is dropped right before the insult, using professional status as a shield for the attack.
Original quote: “Dude, I wasn't engaging with you because I don't like cutting off sources, but you have just become a reply guy looking for my attention. Good luck with your AI dungeon videos. So, this is just it. So, now he's bringing up AI or something like that. I've been a journalist for a decade. uh getting…”
Calls journalist's interview 'completely fabricated' — no proof offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 22:31
Labels the whole interview fake while admitting he only saw 20 seconds of it — bold leap, zero receipts.
Why this score: Speaker brands the entire interview fabricated based on selective editing, yet the only evidence referenced is his own partial viewing — the gap between accusation and evidence is doing all the work.
Original quote: “Fake internet journalist and assign. Oh, this is the uh this is the same p person and uh is used this yeet post as an opportunity to double down on his completely fabricated interview with Asmin Gold viewers.”
Calls interview 'completely fabricated' — no receipts shown — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 22:38
Says 'completely fabricated' like he proved it — just asserted it. 😈
Why this score: Strong accusation with zero evidence presented in this clip. The word 'completely' does the heavy lifting while the actual proof stays off-screen. Classic move: make the claim sound settled when it's still just his word.
Original quote: “double down on his completely fabricated interview with Asmin Gold viewers”
Claims 20 seconds vs hour of context — no proof of either number — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 22:45
Drops 'literally' and specific numbers like 20 seconds and an hour — sounds precise, but still just his version. 💀
Why this score: The specificity makes it feel verified when it's still one person's account. If he had the full hour, it would be easy to show. Instead we get the accusation dressed up as a fact.
Original quote: “Steven in literally lied about everything that I said. He played snippets of what I said, totaling 20 seconds of best, and deletes over an hour of my full context”
Brags he'll hold a grudge and punish someone a decade later — owns it like a virtue — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 23:07
Turns petty revenge into a personality trait and sells it as moral clarity.
Why this score: Speaker frames long-term vindictiveness as honesty rather than malice — the emotional framing masks the actual threat of sustained harassment.
Original quote: “I am an incredibly vindictive person. I will remember this in 10 years. and I will act on the fact that I remember it in 10 years. I love being vindictive and the moment that I'm able to do something to like you you guys saw what I've done with other people over the years right? There's nothing…”
Proudly vows revenge a decade later — owns the grudge like it's a virtue — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 23:14
Brags about holding grudges for ten years like it's a personality trait. Mortal, that's not strength — that's a hobby. 😈
Why this score: He's not hiding the vindictiveness; he's selling it as a feature. The framing turns a personal flaw into a threat with a timeline. The audience is supposed to feel the chill, not question the maturity.
Original quote: “I will remember this in 10 years. and I will act on the fact that I remember it in 10 years. I love being vindictive”
Revenge is his morning coffee — frames payback as daily joy — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 23:36
Says hurting people 'makes my entire week' like it's wholesome self-care. That's not justice, mortal — that's a hobby. 🔥
Why this score: The cheerful tone makes the content land harder. He's not just admitting to grudges; he's romanticizing them as his source of happiness. The framing turns malice into lifestyle branding.
Original quote: “There's nothing that makes me happier than that really. I wake up in the morning and if I have an opportunity to do something like that, it will make my entire week”
Labels critics 'subversive agents' who 'deserve' hostile treatment — enemy-of-the-state rhetoric — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 24:13
Calls them enemy agents instead of just wrong — turns disagreement into treason.
Why this score: By equating journalistic critics with 'subversive agents,' the speaker upgrades a content dispute into national-security language, justifying hostility without needing evidence of actual subversion.
Original quote: “I have no problem making the environment for these people as uncomfortable unpleasant unwelcoming and bad as possible because they deserve it. These people are propagandists. They are liars. And ultimately, they are subversive agents that are taking over institutions such as journalism and then”
Labels critics 'subversive agents' — escalation with zero evidence — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 24:13
Jumps from 'disagrees with me' to 'subversive agents' in one breath. That's not analysis — that's a wanted poster. 💀
Why this score: The language escalates fast: propagandists → liars → subversive agents. Each step sounds more official, but none comes with proof. The goal is to make disagreement feel like treason.
Original quote: “I have no problem making the environment for these people as uncomfortable unpleasant unwelcoming and bad as possible because they deserve it. These people are propagandists. They are liars. And ultimately, they are subversive agents”
Calls journalists 'subversive agents' pushing lies — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 24:30
Slaps 'subversive agents' on journalists — emotion doing the heavy lifting, not evidence 😈
Why this score: The phrase 'subversive agents' is pure loaded language; it frames journalists as deliberate infiltrators rather than people making editorial choices. No specific evidence offered for the coordinated takeover, just the label itself.
Original quote: “subversive agents that are taking over institutions such as journalism and then trying to use it as a propaganda machine to push their lies”
Labels critics 'disgusting little weasels' to justify targeting them — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 25:17
'Disgusting little weasels' — dehumanizing language to make the crackdown sound righteous 😈
Why this score: Calling opponents vermin is classic emotional button-pushing; once they're 'weasels' instead of people, stopping them sounds necessary rather than aggressive. The move is the label, not the policy.
Original quote: “a lot of these disgusting little weasels, I will do everything that I can to stop them from doing this”
See the full analysis with timestamps →