Alex Myers’s obsession review is disturbing
Credibility score: 41/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Alex Myers’s obsession review is disturbing" and rated it 41/100 for credibility (a BS score of 59/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-10. Its weakest claim — "Speaker criticizes Alex for using 'devil's tango' to describe a rape scene, framing it as inappropriate humor." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as loaded language. 10 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 10 claims analyzed: 4 scored under 40, 4 between 40 and 69, and 2 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Speaker sets a casual, urgent tone for a spontaneous reaction video. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
Establishes an informal, unscripted vibe — makes it feel like a raw, honest take.
Why this score: The speaker is setting the stage for a reaction video, emphasizing its spontaneous nature. This framing choice aims to build rapport and authenticity with the audience, suggesting that the content is so compelling it couldn't wait for a polished production. It's a common technique to make the viewer feel like they're getting an unfiltered, immediate response.
Original quote: “I'm filming this pretty early in the
morning, so I'm not doing any like
makeup or anything for this video. I'm
not even sure how long this is going to
be cuz this wasn't even the original
video I was going to film. But, what
this guy said is
is so gross that [snorts]
I kind of just needed to talk…”
Speaker introduces herself as a 'Billie fan' before discussing Alex Meyers. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:22
Aligns herself with a specific fandom — frames her upcoming critique through that lens.
Why this score: By immediately stating she's a 'Billie fan,' the speaker is subtly framing her perspective. This establishes her bias upfront, implying her critique of Alex Meyers will likely be influenced by her loyalty to Billie Eilish. A more neutral framing would introduce the topic or Alex Meyers first, then disclose her fandom as relevant context, rather than a primary identifier. It sets up an 'us vs. them' dynamic before the actual content begins.
Original quote: “Hi, my name is Alyssa. I'm a
Billie fan. Duh. Um
Alex Meyers, who is known for making”
Claiming Alex Meyers reviewed 'Obsession' solely due to its popularity, not genuine interest. This is a strong assumption. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
Asserting 'the only reason' with such certainty is a big leap — it's an assumption presented as fact.
Why this score: The speaker states with absolute certainty that popularity is the 'only reason' for Alex Meyers' review. This is a strong claim about someone else's motivations, which is impossible to know definitively without direct evidence from Alex Meyers himself. It's an assumption framed as an undeniable truth.
Original quote: “And I'm just going to get this out of the way. Um just right off the bat, the only reason I think he reviewed this movie is because it is extremely popular right now. That is it.”
Setting up the premise of the movie 'Obsession' — straightforward plot summary. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:30
Just laying out the basic plot points of the movie. No spin here, just the facts of the story.
Why this score: The speaker is providing a neutral summary of the movie's initial setup. They're not adding any personal interpretation or emotional language, simply stating the characters and their relationships as presented in the film. This is a clean, factual summary of the plot.
Original quote: “a quick little summary overview of Obsession is that it is a movie where the main character, technically, is a guy whose name is Bear. And he is very into a girl in their friend group named Nikki, but she just sees him as a friend.”
Expressing disgust at a joke, linking it to a 'fawn response' and later assault. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:30
The speaker uses strong emotional language ('disgusting') and connects a potentially innocent joke to a 'fawn response' and sexual assault, even while acknowledging they might be 'reading into it too much.'
Why this score: This segment uses an 'Emotional Button' by linking a joke about someone 'just laying there' to the serious concept of a 'fawn response' and later sexual assault. While the speaker acknowledges they might be 'reading into it too much,' the framing immediately elevates the joke from potentially lazy to 'disgusting' by associating it with a trauma response and a future violent act. This uses strong emotional language to guide the audience's interpretation before fully establishing the intent or context of the original joke.
Original quote: “But if that was supposed to be
suggestive
I do find that really disgusting
because it kind of just gives off the
vibe of joking about like a fawn
response. Again, maybe I'm reading into
that one too much. Again, we're on like
the first
joke.
Again, I'm not sure how much we should
be joking about it…”
Speaker criticizes Alex for using 'devil's tango' to describe a rape scene, framing it as inappropriate humor. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 16:30
Calling a rape scene 'devil's tango' in a 'joking manner' is a severe misframing, trivializing a serious act.
Why this score: The speaker is highlighting how Alex's choice of phrase, 'devil's tango,' and the 'joking manner' in which it was delivered, serves to trivialize and euphemize a rape scene. This is a strong example of loaded language being used to soften the impact of a disturbing event, potentially making it seem less severe or even humorous. The speaker argues that while Alex's content is comedy-focused, this particular framing is inappropriate and constitutes 'covering up' the gravity of the scene. A neutral framing would describe the scene directly as a rape, or at least acknowledge its serious nature…
Original quote: “But he refers to the rape scene as them doing the devil's tango in a very joking manner. Which again, I get this is a he mainly does comedy, but do not cover up session then. You do not need to cover up session. I get it's a popular movie. I get it will get you views and [ __ ] Um you don't have to…”
Accusing Alex Myers of using a 'smear campaign' framing — implying political motivation for disliking a character. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 18:30
Framing criticism of a character as a 'smear campaign' or 'liberals want him to be bad' — misrepresents the actual argument.
Why this score: The speaker is accusing Alex Myers of creating a 'straw man' argument. By suggesting that criticism of the character Bear is a 'smear campaign' or politically motivated ('you liberals want Bear to be bad'), Myers would be misrepresenting the actual reasons people might dislike the character. This framing shifts the focus from the character's actions within the movie to an external, often political, agenda, making it easier to dismiss the criticism without addressing its substance. A neutral framing would address the criticisms of Bear's character directly, rather than attributing them to a…
Original quote: “He also claims multiple times in the video that people want Bear to be bad and like he says it like it's some like smear campaign against Bear. Like he says it like you liberals want Bear to be bad so bad. Like you just want him to be the villain so bad.”
Critiquing Alex Myers's use of 'chronically online' and 'cultist' to dismiss discussions about movie themes. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 22:30
The speaker highlights Alex Myers's use of dismissive, loaded terms to invalidate others' engagement with media.
Why this score: Calling people 'chronically online' and 'cultist' is loaded language designed to shut down discussion and discredit critics without addressing their points. It's an ad hominem attack that frames passionate engagement as obsessive or irrational, rather than a legitimate response to a piece of media. A neutral framing would address the points being made, not label the people making them.
Original quote: “Um he calls people who are talking about the movie and talking about the movie's themes and the message of the movie, um just people who are trying to educate people essentially. He calls them chronically online and cultist. Personally, I do not think that being passionate about a piece of media…”
Calling Bear's desire to live 'selfish' after Nikki's actions – a strong emotional judgment. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 26:30
Labeling a character's survival instinct as 'selfish' is a loaded emotional judgment, not an objective observation.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('selfish,' 'crazy horrific ways,' 'so much pain') to frame Bear's actions as morally reprehensible. This pushes the viewer to feel a specific way about the character rather than objectively analyzing the plot, which is an emotional button framing technique. It assumes a moral high ground for the speaker's interpretation.
Original quote: “Which again, at this point in the movie, after everything that has happened is so selfish. Two people just died in crazy horrific ways. And the only way to stop this is if you die too. And you've or you know that you have put Nikki through so much pain and you still want to live?”
Dismisses critics as 'stupid' for not understanding the movie — uses loaded language to shut down dissent. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 28:30
Calling people 'stupid' for disagreeing is a classic way to avoid engaging with their actual points. It's an ad hominem attack.
Why this score: The speaker frames disagreement as a sign of intellectual deficiency ('stupid') rather than a difference in interpretation or values. This loaded language is designed to delegitimize critics without addressing the substance of their arguments. A neutral framing would acknowledge differing perspectives without resorting to insults.
Original quote: “But most of them boil down to look at all these liberals getting upset over a movie. Which I mean, yeah. Um if you didn't understand the concept of this movie, um you'd probably have to be that stupid.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →