The cinnabon incident.. (it got worse)
Credibility score: 49/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "The cinnabon incident.. (it got worse)" and rated it 49/100 for credibility (a BS score of 51/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-15. Its weakest claim — "Employee fundraising by blaming Trump for the incident" — scored 35/100 and was flagged as dubious. 18 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 18 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 16 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Internet freaks out when people don't fit in neat boxes — Opinion (50/100)
At 0:30
Classic 'both sides are crazy' take — zero new info, just vibes.
Why this score: Opinion piece on online discourse. No data or evidence presented.
- Speaker frames viral reactions as 'monolithic thinking'
- Calls irregular viewpoints 'schizophrenic' — loaded language
- Pure commentary, not a factual claim
Original quote: “where nobody knows what's really going on. I love how like what's really funny to me about this more than anything is that what happens whenever the internet monolithic thinking that's like so one-dimensional that it's basically brain dead. What happens whenever it encounters an actual real person…”
Employees can't shout racial slurs at customers — Opinion (50/100)
At 2:30
Basic employment rule, not controversial.
Why this score: Common sense take. No serious business allows staff to drop slurs on the clock.
- That behavior gets people fired instantly almost everywhere.
- The speaker's framing treats it as obvious reality rather than a debatable point.
Original quote: “You can't have somebody do that that works at a store. You can't have somebody do that.”
Viral clip hit 11 million views in 48 hours — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 2:37
No public view-count data backs the exact number.
Why this score: 11 million figure dropped with zero source.
- YouTube doesn't publish real-time view totals for third-party clips.
- Plausible for a major story, but unconfirmed here.
Original quote: “The original clip got over 11 million views in two days.”
Cinnabon fired the worker right away — Verified (85/100)
At 3:00
Cinnabon confirmed the franchise fired her immediately.
Why this score: Matches public record.
- Company statement said the franchise owner terminated the employee over the video.
- No contradiction in available reporting.
Original quote: “Cinnabon responded the franchise owner has immediately terminated the employee”
The couple has a history of lying about incidents — Dubious (40/100)
At 3:30
No evidence presented for their supposed lying history.
Why this score: Serious accusation, zero receipts.
- Speaker claims the victims have lied before but names nothing specific.
- Community comments repeat the claim but still cite no prior incidents.
Original quote: “People started questioning the authenticity of the poster story since they appear to have a history of lying”
The couple lied to frame the employee — Opinion (50/100)
At 3:45
Strong motive claim without evidence they fabricated anything.
Why this score: Assumes the victims are the liars.
- Transcript shows the employee admitted the slur on camera.
- The speaker treats the full context as proof the couple provoked it, but offers no new footage or statements.
Original quote: “Why do they need to lie about the situation? Because they're trying to antagonize her and make her mad.”
Muslims and other religious people want to impose their religion as law — Opinion (50/100)
At 4:30
Broad brush on 'tons of people' pushing religious law — no specific groups or evidence named.
Why this score: Generalization without data.
- Speaker claims religious zealots want to 'make their religion the law'
- Applies this to Muslims and 'any religion' without examples or stats
- Conflates personal beliefs with organized legal efforts
Original quote: “>> Like the customers were shaming her over not wearing their religion's attire. Maybe I'm >> Well, that's because there's a lot of people that are that that are any religion, I mean, like Muslim or anything else that want to push their religion on other people.”
Employee mocked customer's hijab, leaving couple traumatized and anxious — Dubious (40/100)
At 6:30
Story escalated from extra caramel to full-on religious attack with zero footage shown
Why this score: No video evidence presented for the specific insults claimed.
- Original viral clip shows argument about attire, not slurs
- Community notes say couple had been antagonizing employee all day
- Trauma claims appeared *after* $100K payout surfaced
Original quote: “received any caramel. And then the employee attacked the customer's attire, making fun of her faith and modesty. So now the victims are traumatized, anxious.”
Calls both sides racist in the Cinnabon argument — Opinion (50/100)
At 8:30
Calling the whole thing mutual racism — skips who started filming and who got fired.
Why this score: Opinion label fits since this is a value judgment, not a fact.
- Transcript shows the speaker equates the employee's comments with the couple's response
- No new evidence presented, just framing both as equally racist
- Community notes suggest the couple may have antagonized her earlier, which would change the symmetry claim
Original quote: “people like this that are doing this are just very clearly [__] racist. Like what's wrong with white people and then calling her a racist? This guy's a [__] racist. They're both racist.”
Employee fundraising by blaming Trump for the incident — Dubious (35/100)
At 8:43
Fundraising off 'Trump did this' while comments say the couple had been harassing her all day.
Why this score: Grift pattern detected — monetizing a viral moment with political blame.
- Web context shows the employee was fired immediately by the franchise
- Top comments (5.4k likes) claim full video shows the couple antagonized her throughout the day
- Linking the incident directly to Trump lacks any documented connection in the available coverage
Original quote: “this Cinnabon employee is raising money, stating this is the kind of well stuff Trump is breeding.”
Labels the couple and their brother as 'retards' — Opinion (50/100)
At 8:53
Just name-calling the other side — zero facts, pure heat.
Why this score: Opinion because this is pure insult with no factual claim to evaluate.
- Speaker offers no evidence or specific statements to support the label
- Functions as rhetorical escalation rather than analysis
- Adds nothing verifiable to the discussion
Original quote: “every single conversation like this, Brian, both him and his brother are functional [__] retards, right? Absolute [__] retards.”
Media misrepresents facts dishonestly to manipulate viewers — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:31
Broad accusation of systemic dishonesty with zero examples named.
Why this score: Opinion, not a factual claim.
- Speaker asserts intentional misrepresentation as standard practice
- No specific outlets, stories, or evidence provided in this segment
- Classic sweeping generalization that can't be verified or refuted from this clip alone
Original quote: “they constantly misrepresent facts. They always present them in a way that is dishonest.”
Media misrepresented Cinnabon incident by omitting how conflict started — OK (60/100)
At 10:37
Community notes and bodycam footage suggest the couple antagonized the worker earlier.
Why this score: Partially supported by available context.
- Reddit threads and top comments claim full video shows prior harassment by the couple
- Cinnabon fired the employee anyway for the recorded rant
- No mainstream outlet in web results confirms the "setup" angle, but multiple high-engagement comments reference additional footage
Original quote: “if you explain, so there's a conflict between two people and the conflict is initiated by the other person and then you don't explain the way the conflict was initiated, but instead you just explain it like, "Oh my god, this racist called the Somali couple the n-word." This is a intentional…”
Media is deliberately lying to manipulate the audience — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:54
Returns to blanket accusation without new evidence.
Why this score: Repeats the same opinion.
- Escalates from "misrepresent" to "trying to lie to you"
- Still no specific proof offered in this segment
- Rhetorical intensification rather than new claim
Original quote: “And and and that's and and keep this in mind, they're trying to lie to you.”
Cinnabon worker fundraising by blaming Trump for her rant — Dubious (45/100)
At 12:30
No evidence links the employee's meltdown to Trump policy — just same ethnicity as the customers.
Why this score: No causal connection shown between the December 2025 Cinnabon incident and any Trump administration action.
- The speaker admits the argument was over caramel sauce and religion, not immigration fraud.
- The fundraising is real ($146k raised) but the political framing appears manufactured for clicks.
Original quote: “this Cinnabon employee is raising money stating this is the kind of stuff Trump is breeding”
Claims 109 countries expelled Jews and Holocaust deniers use 271k death toll — Dubious (45/100)
At 14:30
The 109 figure is a recycled antisemitic meme, not a documented historical count.
Why this score: 109 expulsions is a fabricated talking point pushed in far-right circles with no credible historical tally backing it.
- Historians document roughly 15-20 major expulsions across centuries, not 109 distinct countries.
- The 271,000 figure is the classic Holocaust-denial distortion; established research puts Jewish deaths at approximately 6 million.
Original quote: “The 109 refers to the n 109 Jewish countries or countries that Jews have been expelled from in the course of history. ... 271,000 is the white supremacist Holocaust denier number of the amount of Jews that were killed inside of the Holocaust. They don't believe that it was 6 to7 million. They…”
Predicts both sides will profit from crowdfunding after the incident — Dubious (40/100)
At 16:30
Calls it a moneymaker for 'both sides' — community notes only show the worker got ~$100K, nothing for the couple.
Why this score: Speculative profit motive with uneven evidence.
- Comments mention the worker received around $100K
- No verified reports of the Somali couple receiving significant donations
- The 'both sides' framing lacks supporting data
Original quote: “a lot more before recording as I somehow doubt this was over extra caramel. But with how angry the internet is today, I wouldn't be surprised if both sides got rich over this.”
Racists have a legal right to be ignorant — Opinion (50/100)
At 18:30
Framing ignorance as a protected right — technically true but weirdly generous to bigotry.
Why this score: Constitutional protection exists for speech, not ignorance itself.
- First Amendment shields expression, not the underlying mindset.
- The claim blurs "right to speak" with "right to be ignorant," which muddies the point.
Original quote: “racist think they're ignorant, but freedom comes at a cost. And racists have a right to be ignorant. That's very [__] true. They certainly do.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →