EVERYONE is getting fired..
Credibility score: 28/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "EVERYONE is getting fired.." and rated it 28/100 for credibility (a BS score of 72/100 — low credibility), on 2026-06-17. Its weakest claim — "Mocks gamers as an identity group alongside nationalities — sarcastic framing" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 22 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 22 claims analyzed: 15 scored under 40, 7 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Mocks gamers as an identity group alongside nationalities — sarcastic framing — Straw Man (20/100)
At 0:00
Sets up the dumbest possible version of the argument then laughs at it. Classic straw man.
Why this score: The speaker reduces the actual discussion about treating 'gamer' as a protected identity to a ridiculous comparison with ethnic/national groups, attacking a caricature instead of whatever the original claim actually was.
Original quote: “This is somebody when South at midnight launched many gamers gamers okay pointed out guys should we start capitalizing gamers as like an identity group like Italians Chinese Americans gamers”
Links Sweet Baby involvement to studio shutdown via pun on 'abort' — Straw Man (20/100)
At 0:30
Turns one consultant credit into the direct cause of closure — no other factors allowed in the story.
Why this score: Ignores market performance, budgets, and timing; reduces complex business failure to a single name-drop for maximum blame.
Original quote: “When South and Midnight launched, many gamers pointed out that Sweet Baby was involved. Now, the studio behind the game is shutting down. So, it's kind of funny that a company called Sweet Baby isn't actually aborting itself. It just aborts everybody that it works with.”
Calls the 'none played' line 'Jesus' — elevates unverified anecdote to gospel — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 3:19
Treats one developer's 'exactly' as divine proof. No sales data, just vibes treated as scripture.
Why this score: Speaker pumps the single exchange to mythic status while the actual commercial performance of the games remains unmentioned. The move substitutes emotional reverence for market evidence.
Original quote: “He really is that guy. He just goes, 'So, none of y'all played these games?' He goes, 'Exactly.' Honestly, bro, like that's Jesus, man.”
Shows Sweet Baby involvement then claims 'none of you played' — guilt by association framing — Missing Context (45/100)
At 3:38
Lists Sweet Baby credits then jumps straight to 'you didn't play it' like that's proof the games failed because of them. Skips sales data entirely.
Why this score: The speaker uses the consultant list as a smoking gun but never shows actual sales numbers or player counts. The framing implies causation from the mere presence of the firm without evidence that it drove the outcome.
Original quote: “So you see right here, this is how many people from Sweet Baby worked on this game South at Midnight. And so uh so none of you played these games.”
Studio closure proves gamer voices are the only thing that matters — false dilemma — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 3:51
Frames shutdown as total proof gamers rule everything. Ignores budgets, publishers, timing, and every other factor.
Why this score: Speaker presents only two options: either gamers alone decide everything or nothing matters. Real studio closures involve multiple variables the argument erases to keep the narrative clean.
Original quote: “Then why' the studio shut down? Then why' it shut down? Why would you have the studio shut down if the g the gamer voices not only do they not mean nothing but nothing else means anything?”
Declares culture war 'completely over' based on one studio closure — overconfident narrative — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:04
One closure becomes 'it's completely over.' Ignores every other studio still operating and shipping games.
Why this score: Speaker treats a single event as decisive victory while the broader industry continues releasing titles. The absolute language sells finality that the data doesn't support.
Original quote: “The gamers are the ones that have risen up and they have said no. We are tired of this [__] We're tired of having these games come out that are garbage and it's over now. It's completely over.”
Dismisses critic as 'Bitcoin millionaire' — ad hominem to avoid argument — Straw Man (20/100)
At 4:12
Instead of engaging the point, reduces guy to 'Bitcoin millionaire' like that's a rebuttal. Classic dodge.
Why this score: Speaker sets up a false version of the opponent (wealthy outsider) then attacks that instead of the actual argument about language or culture. The move lets him skip any real engagement.
Original quote: “And so I'm I'm very fair about this. Bro's a Bitcoin millionaire telling truth in the Cool Islands. You think so? He's just balling out.”
Frames game failure as devs' personal downfall, not market result — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 4:30
Turns corporate layoffs into moral punishment — 'stay where you belong' is pure class contempt dressed as analysis.
Why this score: Speaker takes a business outcome (game didn't sell) and reframes it as cosmic justice sending people back to low-wage jobs. The move loads the failure with personal shame instead of treating it as a market result. No mention of sales data, marketing, or studio decisions — just the emotional button of 'these people deserve to stay down.'
Original quote: “Unfortunately, it failed the capitalism, which is too big brain for someone that pisses their pants over black people. ... You're going back to Starbucks. You're going back to McDonald's. You're going back to section 8 and you're going to stay there this time, okay? You're going to stay there where…”
Writer is unemployable because of how they talk — personal insult as evidence — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 6:30
Turns personal dislike into a hiring rule. Classic 'I wouldn't pay for that' as proof.
Why this score: Speaker takes one subjective impression of speech style and presents it as objective evidence of why no employer would hire the writer. No data on actual hiring practices or what employers value — just the speaker's opinion weaponized as universal truth.
Original quote: “the way that I can tell is that you talk like a [ __ ] You talk like a [ __ ] And why would somebody want to pay someone to talk like a [ __ ]”
Critic only cares now because they missed it earlier — hypocrisy accusation to dismiss feedback — Straw Man (20/100)
At 6:40
Sets up fake timeline where the critic 'should have' flagged it sooner. Ignores that people can notice problems after release.
Why this score: Speaker invents a rule that critics must have pre-identified the game as problematic or their current criticism is invalid. Creates a no-win situation: if they flagged it early they're a 'clout chaser,' if they didn't they're a hypocrite. Real criticism doesn't require perfect foresight.
Original quote: “Really? I wouldn't want to do that. Seems like a waste of time and money, right? I mean, damn. So, anyway, don't act like you care now. Wasn't this game in your DEI detector uh detector uh list, you clout chaser”
Disagreement proves low IQ — disagreement = stupidity move — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 6:55
Frames disagreement as either 'you get it' or 'you're dumb.' Zero middle ground allowed.
Why this score: Speaker reduces complex debate about game controversy to a binary: understand my point or have low intelligence. Conveniently skips the possibility that someone can understand the argument and still reject it. Classic way to avoid engaging with actual counterpoints.
Original quote: “Does this person not even understand what I'm saying? Is this is this a this has to be a person that has a low IQ, right? Like Asmon Gold South of Midnight, the most controversial game right now.”
Calls self 'most important' then 'most humble' in same breath — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
Says he's the most humble guy alive while bragging nonstop — humblebrag 101.
Why this score: Sets up false modesty right after claiming universal importance. The contradiction does all the rhetorical work without needing evidence.
Original quote: “That's it. Every other one is random. Oh, actually that's technically not true. This is an animated video. So like it's a music video. This one has more. So, you know, yeah, it it depends like how you want to grade that, right, or argue that the trailer had 200K. Yes. So, my video and it's because…”
Free market vs 'random council' giving fake awards — false choice setup — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 10:30
Presents two options like those are the only ones on earth. Textbook false dilemma — ignores every other possibility between corporate board and activist panel.
Why this score: The rhetorical trick is the binary: either pure market signals or a conspiracy of award-givers. It erases the actual middle ground of consumer taste, critic consensus, word-of-mouth, and platform algorithms that exist outside both 'free market' myth and 'fake awards' strawman.
Original quote: “I would much rather have things decided by the free market than by a random council of people that give out fake awards to people that they agree with.”
Frames 'woke' as one failure reason while pivoting from awards = success — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 12:30
Sets up awards with no sales as 'strong success' then immediately equates it to 'woke' failure. Classic false equivalence move.
Why this score: Speaker first mocks the 'awards = success' idea as wrong, then uses that same flawed metric to argue 'woke' is a failure factor. The two things aren't equivalent but get treated as matching evidence.
Original quote: “You're so wrong. Many awards with no sales equals strong success. Oh yeah, so true. So being woke isn't the only reason why a company will fail, but being woke is one reason why a company will fail.”
Defines 'woke' so narrowly that only 'bad' stuff counts — real examples get excluded by fiat — Straw Man (20/100)
At 14:30
Sets up a fake version of the word so the real examples can't touch it. Textbook redefinition dodge.
Why this score: By carving out every popular character as 'not woke,' the speaker makes the term apply only to the stuff they already dislike, turning the accusation into a moving target no one can hit.
Original quote: “separate things that are woke versus things that just have representation of like a gay person. Having a gay person or even having, and I know this might sound crazy, even having a black person isn't necessarily being woke.”
Dismisses Sims changes as 'woke' then claims it's irrelevant since it's 'a girl game' — Straw Man (20/100)
At 16:30
Turns a design choice into 'woke garbage' then pivots to 'not my audience' so the criticism can't be challenged.
Why this score: Creates a false target: the game is either 'woke' or irrelevant to him, skipping any discussion of whether the changes were actually forced or commercially smart.
Original quote: “The Sims added woke stuff by having anyone complain. Well, why would Asan care about a girl game? Yeah, why would I I don't care about a girl game.”
Frames single-player drop as 'way lower' by pitting $40 against $2,000 — false choice — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 18:30
Sets up $40 vs $2,000 like those are the only two numbers that matter. Textbook false dilemma.
Why this score: Ignores that both figures are current concurrent players on different titles at different stages of their lifecycle — no baseline, no timeframe, just raw numbers turned into a binary choice to make the drop look catastrophic.
Original quote: “even the single player video games that are uh un, you know, like that have gone down a lot, 40 is way lower than 2,000. like would you rather have $40 or would you rather have $2,000?”
Frames studio closure as proof 'used to be good' era is over — Missing Context (45/100)
At 20:30
Ignores why it closed — just slaps 'used to be good' on it like that's the story.
Why this score: The move is emotional shorthand: 'things used to be good' stands in for actual sales data or studio reasons. Leaves out the part where player counts and reviews actually tell the story.
Original quote: “THEY'RE SHUTTING down another one that used to be good. There's a lot of things that used to be good.”
Reads failure into studio's pre-release message — pure hindsight framing — Straw Man (20/100)
At 22:30
Turns a standard 'proud of the team' note into secret admission of doom. No one said that.
Why this score: Projects failure language onto a boilerplate thank-you post that contains zero self-criticism, manufacturing a gotcha that only exists in the retelling.
Original quote: “They automatically like they knew it was a failure even then. They knew it was cooked even then.”
4k players on $100M budget = total failure — cherry-picked number, no context — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 24:30
Drops 4,000 players like it's damning — ignores total sales, platforms, or long-term revenue.
Why this score: Selects a single low player count without naming the game or showing total units sold across all platforms. $100M budget figure presented without breakdown or verification.
Original quote: “whenever you have a video game come out and there's 4,000 people that play it, think about how much of a [__] failure that is when you invest $100 million into it”
Claims $25k-per-player pricing would have saved the game — sets absurd bar then celebrates its 'failure' — Straw Man (20/100)
At 26:30
Picks a cartoon $25,000 price tag nobody proposed, then acts shocked it didn't happen. Classic rigged hypothetical.
Why this score: Creates an impossible standard of success ($100M from 4k players) so the actual commercial outcome looks like total ideological collapse instead of normal game economics. The glee at more closures is the real point.
Original quote: “Man, it doesn't need to be a failure. If every one of the 4,000 plays 25,000 for the game, it could break even. Yeah, if everybody that played the game gave the studio $25,000, maybe it would be successful, right? But unfortunately, they didn't. It was only like 50 or 40 bucks. So that's it. And…”
Attributes 30k-like tweets to bots with zero proof — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 28:30
Calls popular tweets 'bots' — names zero accounts or data. Anonymous authority doing the heavy lifting.
Why this score: Dismisses visible support by labeling it fake without evidence, then contrasts it with unverifiable 'real' demographics to imply the support isn't genuine.
Original quote: “you see tweets that 30k likes defending these woke slap games, yet they struggle to break underk players”
See the full analysis with timestamps →