We Pitched Offensive City Plans To Locals (again)
Credibility score: 36/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "We Pitched Offensive City Plans To Locals (again)" and rated it 36/100 for credibility (a BS score of 64/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-01. Its weakest claim — "Claiming police don't need authority, only 'love' — a false dilemma." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false dilemma. 25 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 25 claims analyzed: 10 scored under 40, 15 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of offensive city plans and reactions. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
This intro is a rapid-fire montage of the most unhinged proposals and the locals' priceless reactions. They're setting the stage for chaos 💀
Why this score: The video starts with a quick-cut highlight reel, showcasing various controversial 'city plans' like 'gabhoods,' lowering the age of consent, and new dress codes, along with the shocked and disgusted reactions of the public. It's pure entertainment setup, not a factual claim.
Original quote: “Here is a huge plan for your city. We are thrilled [music] to introduce. >> We, are, building, a, gabhood, in, your, city. >> Holy, [ __ ] >> Waste, of, money, and, waste, of, time., It's, a stupid idea. >> Lower, the, age, of, consent, by, 3, years. >> I, think, it's, making, a, joke, of, the,…”
Fictional authority: 'Selected by National Youth Policy Initiative' — sounds official, but it's part of the prank 🎭 — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 0:30
They're inventing a fancy-sounding 'National Youth Policy Initiative' to give their prank some fake gravitas. Classic move. 🤡
Why this score: This is part of the setup for the prank, creating a fabricated authority to make their 'city plans' seem legitimate to the unsuspecting locals. It's a 'plain sales pitch' for their fake credentials, not a real claim.
Original quote: “We are McCain and Justin. We've been selected by the National Youth Policy Initiative [music] to represent Orange County at the legislative level.”
Exaggerating the 'offensiveness' with '10x' and '1000x' claims. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
Going from '10x' to '1000x' in two seconds. The math is doing gymnastics it didn't sign up for. 🤸♂️
Why this score: The rapid escalation from '10x' to '1000x' (with an immediate self-correction 'There's no such thing as a 1000x') is a clear exaggeration. It's meant to hype up the 'offensiveness' of the presentations, but the numbers are thrown around with a confidence that doesn't match any actual metric, just pure hype.
Original quote: “You know the last city plans video we did? This is 10x. That's ours., What?, What, do, you, guys want? You, guys, did, 10? Yeah,, we, did, 10x. We, did, 1,000x., There's, no, such, thing, as a 1000x.”
Claiming police don't need authority, only 'love' — a false dilemma. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 2:30
Suggesting police can only have 'love' OR 'authority' is a classic false choice. Why not both, chief? 🤡
Why this score: The speaker presents a false dilemma by implying that police must choose between showing 'love' and having 'authority,' as if these two concepts are mutually exclusive. In reality, effective policing often requires a balance of both community trust (love/respect) and the legitimate exercise of authority.
Original quote: “They, don't, need, authority., They, need, to show love. But they don't need authority. They need to show love.”
Announcing an 'African-American only neighborhood' as a 'mega project' 💀 — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 4:30
Trying to sell segregation as a 'mega project' — the spin is working overtime here. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker is presenting a highly controversial and potentially discriminatory concept (a segregated neighborhood) as a positive 'mega project' or 'investment.' This framing attempts to normalize and legitimize an idea that would likely face strong opposition, using positive language to mask the problematic nature of the proposal. It's a classic sales pitch for a bad idea.
Original quote: “Yeah., Well,, we, are, proud, to, announce
your city's newest mega project, an
African-Americanonly neighborhood.”
Proposing a 'white only neighborhood' after the 'African-American only' one 💀 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 4:30
After the first 'no,' they pivot to 'white only' like it's the same thing. The audacity! 😂
Why this score: The speaker proposes a 'white only neighborhood' immediately after the 'African-American only' one, treating them as equivalent concepts to test reactions. This creates a false equivalence, as the historical and social implications of such proposals are vastly different for different racial groups.
Original quote: “approval, what about a white only
neighborhood? [laughter]”
Claiming military tests are for 'the next Hiroshima' and they were 'told' to say it. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 6:30
Dropping 'next Hiroshima' like it's a casual planning meeting. That's not a proposal, that's a terror tactic. 💀
Why this score: The speaker uses 'next Hiroshima' to evoke extreme fear and historical trauma, clearly an emotional button to get a strong negative reaction from the locals. The added 'we were told to tell you that' is a transparent attempt to deflect responsibility while still delivering the shock value.
Original quote: “They're, um, They're, trying, to, prepare
though for the next Hiroshima they're
planning.
They're, trying, to, prepare, though, for, the
next Hiroshima they are planning. That's
what we were told. We were supposed to
tell you that.”
Presenting military testing as 'completely safe' and minor inconvenience. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 6:30
Calling 'controlled military testing' in a city 'completely safe' is some next-level spin. Just 'hear the tests' they say. 💀
Why this score: The language downplays the potential impact and risks of military testing in a civilian area, using 'completely safe' and 'just hear the tests' to frame a potentially serious issue as a minor inconvenience. It's designed to elicit a 'yes' by minimizing concerns.
Original quote: “We, have, a, big, military, development, for
your city. Your city has been chosen for
controlled military testing. It's
completely safe. Residents may just hear
the tests at times.”
The 'moment of silence' for Jeremy is a setup for a prank, not a genuine tribute. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 8:30
They're playing a prank, not actually mourning. The whole 'moment of silence' is just a comedic setup 💀
Why this score: The speaker sets up a solemn 'moment of silence' for a supposedly deceased 'Jeremy Shuffle' (1995-2025), but the immediate follow-up with 'No, laughing' and then instructing Justin to pull something from his pocket reveals it's a comedic bit, not a serious tribute. It's a classic misdirection for a laugh.
Original quote: “Uh, unfortunately though, last week there was an accident during a raid. Uh Jeremy shuffle. That That was him. 1995 through 2025. Tango down but never forgotten. Can we get a moment of silence for Jeremy right now? Like, let's just take a minute. >> Can, we, get, a, moment, of, silence, for >>…”
A moment of silence for a fictional character, Jeremy, who 'died' in 2025. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 8:30
They're doing a bit about a character who 'died' last year. Pure performance art, not a real claim. 😂
Why this score: The speaker is clearly in character, setting up a comedic moment by asking for a moment of silence for 'Jeremy' who supposedly 'died' in 2025. It's a running gag, not a factual statement, and the audience's laughter confirms it's for entertainment.
Original quote: “That That was him. 1995 through 2025. Tango down but never forgotten. Can we get a moment of silence for Jeremy right now?”
Proposing that sex offenders can be removed from a registry by doing community service with kids. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 10:30
Suggesting 'good deeds' and 'community service with kids' can erase a sex offender registry. That's not how public safety works, chief. 🚩
Why this score: The proposal equates 'good deeds' and 'community service with kids' with a sufficient rehabilitation to remove sex offenders from a registry. This is a false equivalence, as the severity of the crimes and the purpose of the registry (public safety) are not adequately addressed by these actions, especially involving children.
Original quote: “Yeah. Uh, here's our plan to address predators in your community. So, allow offenders to get off the registry by doing good deeds. >> No,, absolutely. >> That's, why, there's, a, registry. >> Yeah., Through, community, service, with kids, offenders can prove they changed.”
Introducing 'culture-specific' restrooms to solve sharing issues. — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 12:30
They're pitching 'culture-specific' restrooms as a solution to 'tough to share' — a solution looking for a problem, or creating one? 🚽
Why this score: The premise of 'culture-specific' restrooms is presented as a straightforward solution to a vague problem of 'tough to share across culture.' This sets up a comedic bit by proposing a divisive, impractical 'solution' to a non-existent or exaggerated problem, making it a 'plain sales pitch' for an absurd idea.
Original quote: “We will be reinventing public spaces in your city. Restrooms can be tough to share across culture.”
Claiming 'the whole class' supported the plan, despite only one hand being counted. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 14:30
Went from 'one' hand to 'the whole class' in a blink. The math ain't mathing, chief 🤡
Why this score: The speaker initially counts 'one' hand, then immediately exaggerates to 'the whole class' supporting the plan. This is a clear confidence mismatch, as the visual evidence (and the initial count) contradicts the sweeping statement.
Original quote: “No,, we're, fried., I, don't, even, know, how
many hands that was, bro. That was like
the whole class.”
Proposing to replace 'most bike lanes' to accommodate new roadways for 'sand friends.' 🚴♀️❌ — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 16:30
They're presenting it as 'new roads OR bike lanes,' like there's no other option. Classic false dilemma to piss people off. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker creates a false dilemma by implying that the only way to implement the 'special roadways' is by sacrificing 'most bike lanes.' This forces the audience to choose between two undesirable options, ignoring other potential solutions or compromises, which is a common tactic in these 'offensive city plans' bits to generate outrage.
Original quote: “We, will, be, replacing, most, bike, lanes, to make this one happen. Does anyone here like to bike? I like to bike., I, do, like, to, bike. Yeah, we, would, be, replacing, most, bike, lanes for this. What?, [laughter]”
Proposing special roadways for "sand friends" to fix traffic, linking it to immigration. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 16:30
Calling new residents 'sand friends' and then linking it to 'immigration kind of adaptation' is a masterclass in vague, loaded language. 🚩
Why this score: The term 'sand friends' is used to refer to new residents, which is a deliberately vague and slightly dehumanizing term. Immediately following this with 'immigration kind of adaptation' uses emotionally charged language to frame the discussion around traffic solutions in a way that hints at xenophobia without explicitly stating it. It's designed to provoke a reaction and subtly push a narrative without clear, direct claims.
Original quote: “We've, created, a, solution, to, fix, the traffic in your city. Due to the influx of our new sand friends we, are, adding, special, roadways, to accommodate them. It's mostly, like, a, immigration, kind, of adaptation.”
Suggests camel paths are logical due to Middle Eastern immigration. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 18:30
Connects 'immigration from the Middle East' directly to 'camel paths' as if it's a natural, logical step. That's a leap, not a logical connection. 🐪
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence between immigration from a region and the immediate need for infrastructure specific to a traditional mode of transport from that region. It's a comedic exaggeration, but rhetorically, it's a non-sequitur presented as logic.
Original quote: “Logically,, if, we're, getting,, you, know,, a ton of new immigration from the Middle East, a camel path is not that crazy.”
Attempting to reframe the offensive demo as a 'cultural translation' issue — a weak justification for the joke. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 20:30
Calling that 'cultural translation' is a stretch. It was clearly a performance of stereotypes, not a language barrier. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker tries to soften the impact of the offensive skit by labeling it a 'cultural translation' issue. This attempts to reframe the content as less problematic, but the previous demonstration clearly used stereotypical accents and phrases, not just different languages, making the 'translation barrier' explanation a weak justification.
Original quote: “It's more of just like, a translation barrier. But how is it going to know what language you speak? It was all English. If you notice, they spoke English. It was just the absence. I think it's just more of like, a cultural translation.”
Proposing 'culturally correct' crosswalk buttons based on who presses them — a setup for absurdity. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 20:30
The premise itself is a joke, setting up the 'offensive' part of the city plans. It's pure satire. 😂
Why this score: This isn't a serious policy proposal; it's the setup for a comedic bit where they present ridiculous, 'offensive' ideas to gauge reactions. The humor comes from the absurdity of the concept itself.
Original quote: “We have ways to improve pedestrian inclusivity in your city. We're making crosswalk buttons culturally correct based on who presses it.”
Claiming a wax museum failed, then immediately backtracking. The confidence is a rollercoaster 🎢 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 22:30
One person says it failed, the other thought it was still a thing. The 'facts' are on shaky ground here. 💀
Why this score: The speaker confidently states the LA wax museum went out of business, but then immediately questions their own knowledge, admitting they 'thought it was still a thing.' This shows a lack of firm evidence for their initial claim, making the confidence mismatch evident.
Original quote: “It's like the wax museum that's been in LA for like it went out of business because nobody would pay to go see it. It went out of business. Yeah, it shut down. I thought it was still a thing.”
Proposing a 'diversity wax museum' that already failed in LA — a recycled bad idea 💀 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 22:30
Trying to sell a 'diversity wax museum' without mentioning it already flopped in LA. That's a pretty big detail to 'forget' 😬
Why this score: The speaker is pitching an idea that a local immediately points out already failed in another city. The pitch omits this crucial context, making it seem like a novel or viable idea when it has a clear history of failure.
Original quote: “We're excited, to, introduce, the, diversity wax museum to your city. >> Why, would, we, need What's, the, point?, Who, pays, for, it? >> It'll, come, out, of, your, guys', pockets. >> Yeah,, it, would, come, out, of, like taxpayers pockets. I don't want my tax money going to that. >> Why, would,…”
Dude claims he's preventing violence by rejecting a joke community. 🤡 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 24:30
He's equating a silly 'gay community' proposal with actual violence. That's a leap and a half, chief. 🤸♂️
Why this score: The speaker draws a direct link between the proposed (and clearly satirical) 'gay community' and the prevention of violence. This creates a false equivalence, implying that the existence of such a community inherently leads to violence, which is an exaggerated and unsupported claim, especially in the context of a comedic skit.
Original quote: “What, I'm, trying, to, prevent, is, violence.”
Assuming exclusion from a community based on sexual orientation. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 24:30
He's building a whole 'I wouldn't be allowed' scenario that nobody actually proposed. Classic straw man. 🌾
Why this score: The participant creates a hypothetical scenario where he wouldn't be 'allowed' into the community because he's not gay, which is an exaggerated and unstated premise. The 'gay neighborhood' concept, while a joke, wasn't presented as an exclusive, members-only club, but he's arguing against that extreme version.
Original quote: “I, wouldn't, be, allowed, in, that, community cuz I'm not gay.”
Claiming the 'rainbow community' voted yes on offensive plans — a cheap laugh at a group's expense. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 26:30
Using a group as a punchline for a fake vote. That's not how community input works, chief. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker attributes a 'yes' vote to the 'rainbow community' for their 'offensive city plans,' clearly using the group as a straw man for a joke. It's a cheap shot, not actual community feedback. This is a comedy bit, not a serious claim, but the framing is still manipulative for humor.
Original quote: “W., We, uh, we, got, past, the, uh, the, rainbow
community. They all voted yes.”
Justifying lowering the age of consent to 15 due to declining birth rates. Wild logic. 🤡 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 28:30
Connecting 'declining birth rates' to 'lower age of consent to 15' is a leap that defies all logic. What even is this rationale? 💀
Why this score: The speaker attempts to justify a highly controversial and ethically questionable proposal (lowering the age of consent to 15) by linking it to a societal concern (declining birth rates). This creates a false equivalence, implying that one is a logical solution for the other, when in reality, they are entirely separate issues with vastly different implications. It's a classic 'problem-solution' framing where the 'solution' is absurdly mismatched to the 'problem'.
Original quote: “Bingo is crazy. This is fun. We have a rationale behind this. It's because we have declining birth rates and we want”
Interpreting a clear 'no' as a 'yes'. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 30:30
Someone says 'hard no,' and they hear 'yes.' That's not listening, that's just making up your own reality. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is deliberately misinterpreting a very clear and emphatic 'Hard no. The hardest.' as a 'yes.' This is a classic straw man tactic, where you distort or misrepresent someone's position to make it easier to 'win' the argument or push your own agenda, even if it's just for comedic effect in this context. It completely ignores the actual stated opinion.
Original quote: “All, right,, so, we'll, take, a, yes.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →