It just keeps getting worse..
Credibility score: 36/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "It just keeps getting worse.." and rated it 36/100 for credibility (a BS score of 64/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-06. Its weakest claim — "Comparing US democracy to countries with political prisoners, like it's all the same vibe. 🤡" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 14 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 14 claims analyzed: 5 scored under 40, 9 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Sets up the video with emotionally charged language and specific, unverified details about the incident. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
Starts with 'absolutely horrific footage' and 'severely beaten' before showing anything. The emotional buttons are already pressed. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged words like 'horrific' and 'severely beaten' and adds a detail about a 'Roman candle' before the footage even plays. This primes the viewer to react with outrage and fear, rather than letting the video speak for itself. It's a classic setup to control the narrative.
Original quote: “Absolutely horrific footage has emerged from a teen takeover in North Charleston, South Carolina. It appears a white female police officer was severely beaten by a mob of black teens including in what appears to be with a Roman candle. Okay, let's watch it.”
Describing the violence as 'literally punching her in the face' and 'literally hitting her' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Using 'literally' twice to describe the obvious violence, as if we needed confirmation it wasn't a metaphor. We see it, chief. 🥊
Why this score: The use of 'literally' here is redundant and adds an unnecessary emphasis to an already clear visual. It's a common rhetorical tic that tries to heighten the impact of an observation that's already self-evident from the video.
Original quote: “Unbelievable and look at it just literally punching her in the face. Look at that. The guy's holding her down while this guy is just literally you're hitting just hitting her in the face. Oh my god.”
Asks 'Where's the guns at?' implying a need for lethal force. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:30
The 'where's the guns at?' is a classic emotional appeal to escalate the situation, tapping into fear and a desire for extreme intervention. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker's question, 'Where's the guns at?', isn't a literal inquiry about the location of firearms but a rhetorical device. It suggests that the violence is so extreme that lethal force should be deployed, playing on the viewer's emotional response to the brutality shown in the video. It's a common tactic to push for a more aggressive response.
Original quote: “That Oh, she tried to stomp on her head. Look. Uh maybe just jump over but it's close. Oh my god. That's insane, man. Where's the guns at? I don't know.”
Setting the scene with a dramatic, unverified claim about business shutdowns. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:30
They're just dropping 'businesses shut down' like it's a fact, but for what reason? And when? Zero details. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker states that authorities 'were forced to shut down businesses' but provides no specific date, reason, or source for this claim. Without context, it's impossible to verify if this actually happened, or if it's being presented out of proportion to the actual event. It's a setup for the chaos they're about to show.
Original quote: “Authorities in California were forced to shut down businesses from Newport Pier”
Dismisses 'just like Iran' comparison while advocating for authoritarian measures. 🚩 — Volume Game (45/100)
At 4:30
Says 'not just like Iran' right after suggesting shock collars and forced labor. The self-awareness is... optional. 😬
Why this score: The speaker quickly dismisses the comparison to Iran, but the proposed 'neck collars and shock collars' for forced labor, combined with the earlier 'shoot first' hypothetical, certainly leans into authoritarian control. It's a classic volume game: make an extreme suggestion, then quickly wave away the obvious comparison without actually addressing the underlying similarities in control tactics.
Original quote: “The educators, yep, that's right. Just like Iran? No, not just like Iran.”
Comparing US democracy to countries with political prisoners, like it's all the same vibe. 🤡 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 6:30
Lumping the US with countries that jail political opponents is a wild leap — not all 'issues' are equal. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker draws a false equivalence between the US and countries like Turkey or Venezuela, implying similar levels of democratic privilege or lack thereof, despite vastly different political systems and human rights records. It downplays the severity of actual political imprisonment by comparing it to unspecified 'issues' in the US.
Original quote: “I see a country like, you know, for example, like Serbia or like Turkey, right? Turkey had that issue where they put the other guy in jail or Indonesia or [ __ ] let me let me think. Venezuela had this issue. Mexico is like it's it's a middle ground, right? Nepal, I don't know about Nepal, right?…”
Speaker says they'd only do 'teen takeovers' if they knew they'd get away with it, implying harsh punishment is the only deterrent. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 8:30
Suggests the only two options are 'get away with it' or 'shock collar/prison/shot.' Like there's no in-between for consequences. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker presents a false dilemma, implying that without extreme, violent, or dehumanizing punishments (being shot, shock collars, immediate prison), there are no effective deterrents for 'teen takeovers.' This ignores a spectrum of legal and social consequences that exist between 'getting away with it' and these severe options.
Original quote: “the reason why is because I knew I would get away with it. If I knew that the police officers would shoot you if you did this stuff or you'd actually go to jail or they'd put a shock collar on you and like make you clean everything up and then put you in prison, I wouldn't do it.”
Labels people as 'second generation Moroccan migrants' before showing video of alleged attacks. 🚩 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:30
Immediately labels the group by ethnicity and migrant status before showing the video. Setting the stage with loaded terms, much? 🙄
Why this score: By specifically identifying the individuals as 'second generation Moroccan migrants' before showing any footage of the alleged attacks, the speaker uses loaded language. This framing can prime the audience to view the subsequent actions through a specific lens, potentially associating the behavior with their background rather than individual actions, which is a classic rhetorical trick.
Original quote: “I'll look at these Nomad, I will. Let me see this. Second generation Moroccan migrants attacking French drivers after Morocco defeated Canada in the World Cup.”
Expressing relief and demanding more action against 'these people' — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 12:30
The 'thank god' and 'got to go after these people more' is pure emotional rallying, not a policy proposal 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('Thank god,' 'got to go after these people more') to express a strong, visceral reaction and demand action, without specifying who 'these people' are or what specific actions should be taken. It's designed to evoke agreement through shared sentiment rather than logical argument.
Original quote: “Thank god. They got to go after these”
Connects modern 'caveman' behavior to natural selection 7,000 years ago. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 14:30
Jumps from 'we're all cavemen at heart' to 'natural selection 7,000 years ago' like it's the same thing. That's a leap, not a bridge. 🤦♂️
Why this score: The speaker draws a direct, uncritical line between a modern, metaphorical 'caveman at heart' idea and the actual process of natural selection occurring 7,000 years ago. This creates a false equivalence, implying that modern behaviors or instincts are directly and simply linked to ancient evolutionary pressures without acknowledging the vast cultural, social, and environmental changes that have occurred since.
Original quote: “we're all cavemen at heart. So so this is again, the cavemen that did this were naturally selected, okay? You anybody that made a spear like this back 7,000 years ago was naturally selected.”
Argues against 'random women' in police force, preferring 'Amazonian goddesses'. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 14:30
Sets up a false choice: 'random women' vs. 'Amazonian goddesses' for police. As if those are the only two options 🙄
Why this score: The speaker creates a false dichotomy, implying that the only options for female police officers are '5'3 110-lb random women' or '6'3 Amazonian goddesses' who are former athletes. This is a straw man argument, as it misrepresents the actual standards and diversity within police forces to make a point about perceived physical inadequacy.
Original quote: “You don't. I mean like you you're not there. I mean like if we had Listen, if you had some 6'3 Amazonian goddess that was like just throwing these people down that used to be like a former wrestler or like volleyball player, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But you can't be bringing in these 5'3…”
Dismissing women police officers based on height and weight, using a fictional character as the 'ideal' 🤡 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 16:30
Comparing real police officers to Brienne of Tarth is like comparing a house cat to a tiger — one's a fictional warrior, the other's a job 🙄
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false equivalence by comparing real-world police officers to a fictional character (Brienne of Tarth) known for superhuman strength. This dismisses the actual training, tactics, and diverse roles of police work, reducing it to a simplistic physical comparison based on height and weight, which isn't the sole determinant of effectiveness.
Original quote: “bringing in these 5'3 110-lb like just random women and having them be police officers. It's not going to work. Yeah, if you had Yeah, if it was Brienne of Tarth, then it would be fine. But like we've got to be honest here. A 5'5 125-lb police officer isn't going to be able to do [ __ ]”
Claiming Ronnie Coleman has more Mr. Olympia wins than anyone, then hedging immediately. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 18:30
Starts with 'I think he has' then 'I'm pretty sure he has' — the confidence is doing more heavy lifting than the actual knowledge. 🏋️♂️
Why this score: The speaker states a fact with a 'I think' then doubles down with 'I'm pretty sure,' suggesting a high degree of certainty without actually knowing for sure. Ronnie Coleman has 8 Mr. Olympia titles, tied with Lee Haney, so he hasn't won more than 'anybody else' outright, but he is tied for the most. The 'I think' and 'I'm pretty sure' signal a lack of definitive knowledge while still asserting the claim.
Original quote: “Hasn't Ronnie Coleman won more Mr. Olympias than anybody else? I think he has. It's like it's it's like him and then Arnold Schwarzenegger.”
Calling 'team takeovers' embarrassing with strong language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 20:30
Using 'so fucking embarrassing' to describe 'team takeovers' — strong emotional language to drive a point, not just state it. 😬
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, expletive-laden language ('so fucking embarrassing') to express a personal opinion about 'team takeovers.' This isn't a factual claim but an emotional judgment, designed to evoke a strong reaction from the audience rather than present a neutral observation. It's pure vibe, not data. 💀
Original quote: “But yeah, anyway, yeah, these team takeovers are so [ __ ] embarrassing, man.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →