Everyone waited for this..
Credibility score: 36/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "Everyone waited for this.." and rated it 36/100 for credibility (a BS score of 64/100 — low credibility), on 2026-06-23. Its weakest claim — "Labor did a 'tank swap' in the UK — using a gaming analogy for politics." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 21 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 21 claims analyzed: 9 scored under 40, 11 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Speaker claims everyone knows why Kier Starmer resigned, then says it's a 'very big deal' that he resigned. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:00
Says 'everybody knows' why he resigned, then acts like it's a huge mystery. Pick a lane, chief! 🤡
Why this score: The speaker states 'Everybody knows why he resigned' but then immediately follows up with a dramatic tone about how 'bad' and 'big a deal' it is, implying there's more to the story or that the audience might not actually know. This creates a mismatch between the asserted common knowledge and the presented gravity/mystery.
Original quote: “Let's take a look at Kier Starmmer. I don't want to get too distracted and too off topic. So Kier Starmmer resigned today. Now, why did he resign? Everybody knows why he resigned. So anyway, I'm going to go ahead and watch this. This is him talking about it and uh this is it. This is a pretty big…”
Kier Starmer had 'aggro,' so Labor did a 'tank swap' to bring in a new leader — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:30
Calling it a 'tank swap' for Kier Starmer implies he was replaced, but he's still the leader of the Labour Party. The analogy doesn't quite fit the current reality. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is applying the 'tank swap' analogy directly to Kier Starmer, implying he was 'swapped out' due to 'aggro' (negative public perception). However, as of June 2026, Kier Starmer is still the leader of the Labour Party. The analogy is being used to describe a hypothetical or desired political maneuver, or perhaps a past event that isn't clearly specified, rather than a current reality. This creates 'missing context' because the analogy is presented as if Starmer was replaced, which isn't accurate.
Original quote: “So, this guy had a lot of aggro. Kier Starmer had a lot of aggro. So, now, okay, well, let's get Kier Starmer out of aggro radius. We're going to bring in a new guy, and we're going to assign all of the fault and all the problems of the”
Labor did a 'tank swap' in the UK — using a gaming analogy for politics. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 0:30
Comparing political strategy to a video game mechanic is a stretch — it's a fun analogy, but not a direct equivalent. 🎮
Why this score: The speaker uses a 'tank swap' from a video game (likely World of Warcraft, given 'Onixia') as a direct analogy for a political maneuver by the Labour party. While analogies can be illustrative, presenting a complex political event as a simple game mechanic oversimplifies the reality and creates a false equivalence between two vastly different domains.
Original quote: “what Labor did in the UK is they performed what's called a tank swap.”
Comparing political leadership changes to a 'tank swap' in a game — a relatable analogy. — No Frame (75/100)
At 2:30
Using a gaming analogy to explain political strategy — it's a creative way to simplify a complex idea. 🎮
Why this score: The speaker uses the 'tank swap' analogy from gaming to illustrate how political parties might replace a leader to deflect blame without fundamentally changing their approach. It's a clear, relatable comparison that makes the point effectively.
Original quote: “a new guy, and we're going to assign all of the fault and all the problems of the of the party to this person that we just removed that everybody hates now. But now, the new person here is going to take his place and do the same thing. They're tanking the same boss in the same way. And they, you…”
Speaker claims he inherited a Labor party that was 'politically, financially, and morally bankrupt.' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Calling the party 'bankrupt' in three different ways is a classic blame-shifting move. The triple threat of 'politically, financially, morally' is doing heavy lifting. 🎭
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, negative language ('politically, financially, and morally bankrupt') to describe the state of the party he inherited. This serves to deflect responsibility and set a low bar for his own performance, framing any subsequent improvements as a major achievement. It's a rhetorical tactic to establish a narrative of overcoming immense challenges rather than a neutral assessment.
Original quote: “You did everything wrong. I inherited a Labor party that was politically, financially, and morally bankrupt. >> So this now we begin the part where it's actually not his fault. It's somebody else's fault. They did it wrong. He's doing his best. And it's not Uh-huh. Right. Yeah. And And what did you…”
Sarcastic dismissal of 'fairer country' claim by referencing child rape victims and police inaction 😠 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 6:30
Uses a horrific example of child rape and police victim-blaming to dunk on a political speech. It's a brutal, emotionally charged counterpoint. 💔
Why this score: The speaker uses a highly emotional and tragic example (child rape victims being blamed by police) to directly contradict the political claim of building a 'fairer country with dignity and respect.' This is an 'emotional button' because it leverages a deeply disturbing scenario to evoke outrage and discredit the original statement, rather than engaging with policy or broader societal issues. It's effective but manipulative.
Original quote: “I'm sure it was really fair for all the thousands of girls that got raped. I'm sure it was really fair for them. Yeah, it was fair for them to go to the police and then have the police think that they did it themselves. Well, you're 11 years old. You consented to being gang raped by three adult…”
Sarcastic dismissal of fairness claims, referencing thousands of rape victims and police inaction. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 6:30
Using a horrific, unverified anecdote about child rape and police blaming victims to dunk on a political speech. That's a low blow, man 😬
Why this score: The speaker uses a highly emotional and disturbing hypothetical scenario (or unverified claim) involving child rape and police misconduct to discredit the preceding political rhetoric about building a 'fairer country with dignity and respect.' This is a classic emotional button, designed to evoke outrage and disgust, rather than engage with the political claims on their own merits. The 'thousands of girls' claim is presented without any specific evidence or context.
Original quote: “I'm sure it was really fair for all the thousands of girls that got raped. I'm sure it was really fair for them. Yeah, it was fair for them to go to the police and then have the police think that they did it themselves. Well, you're 11 years old. You consented to being gang raped by three adult…”
Questioning 'asylum hotels closing' as a 'good thing' while implying it's a distraction. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:30
Calling 'asylum hotels closing' a 'good thing' is framed as a 'little bone' thrown to people. It's a classic 'look over here, not over there' move. 🦴
Why this score: The speaker challenges the premise that closing asylum hotels is inherently good, suggesting it's a superficial gesture ('little bones') to distract from broader immigration policies. This implies a lack of transparency or a hidden agenda, without providing specific evidence of the distraction or the 'mass immigration' they mention.
Original quote: “Why are asylum hotels closing a good thing? Like this is the kind of stuff is that like you you create these like little bones that you throw to people.”
Dismissing policy as 'little bones' while claiming 'mass immigration' is ignored. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 8:30
Compares closing hotels to 'little bones' vs. 'mass immigration' as if they're mutually exclusive or equally weighted issues. That's a false choice, chief. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker creates a false dichotomy, suggesting that addressing asylum hotels is a trivial 'bone' thrown to the public, while the 'real' issue of 'mass immigration' is being ignored. This implies that one cannot address both or that one is inherently more important, which isn't necessarily true. It's a classic 'look over here, not over there' move.
Original quote: “Like this is the kind of stuff is that like you you create these like little bones that you throw to people. Meanwhile, you allow like mass immigration and mass migration into the country nonstop. I mean like come on guys, what are we doing? Yeah, they increased their navy from two ships to three…”
Dismissing the PM's claim with vague, repetitive doubt — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
Just saying 'not really' a dozen times isn't an argument, it's just... saying 'not really' 💀
Why this score: The speaker dismisses the Prime Minister's statement about putting the country first with repeated, vague denials ('not really though') without offering any specific counter-evidence or examples. It's pure vibe-based dismissal.
Original quote: “Well, I mean, not really though, right? I mean, like, that's not I mean, like I mean, like, not really though. But I mean, I know you're going to say something like, but like I mean, we all know like I mean, but not not really.”
Comparing a PM crying to Winston Churchill — a historical 'what if' for a hot take 🔥 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 12:30
Comparing a modern PM's emotional moment to Winston Churchill's hypothetical tears. Different eras, different expectations, bro. 🕰️
Why this score: The speaker draws a comparison between a modern Prime Minister crying and Winston Churchill, implying that Churchill would never cry except under extreme circumstances. This creates a false equivalence by ignoring the vast differences in societal norms, political pressures, and public perception of emotion between Churchill's era and today.
Original quote: “You're the prime minister. Can you imagine Winston Churchill crying? Yeah, maybe after he founds out that Hitler was dead. Other than that, no.”
Comparing a modern PM crying to Churchill's stoicism — a historical false equivalence 🕰️ — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 12:30
Comparing a PM's public emotion to Churchill's wartime persona is apples and oranges. Different eras, different expectations. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker is drawing a direct comparison between a modern Prime Minister showing emotion and Winston Churchill, implying that Churchill's perceived stoicism sets a universal standard. This is a false equivalence because societal norms, political pressures, and public expectations for leaders have changed significantly since Churchill's time. It ignores the historical context and applies a rigid, anachronistic standard.
Original quote: “You're the prime minister. Can you imagine Winston Churchill crying? Yeah, maybe after he founds out that Hitler was dead. Other than that, no.”
Claiming 'everybody knows' this specific chivalrous act as universal knowledge. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 14:30
Saying 'everybody knows this' like it's a universal truth, but it's more of a niche etiquette rule. Not exactly common knowledge, chief. 🧐
Why this score: The speaker asserts a specific social etiquette as something 'everybody knows' and 'we all know this,' implying universal agreement without any actual evidence or polling. This uses anonymous authority to lend weight to a personal opinion on chivalry, presenting it as an undeniable fact.
Original quote: “everybody knows that a gentleman walks closer to the side of the uh to the road. That way, if a car drives by and it splashes water, it doesn't get his wife or his girlfriend's clothes dirty. Everybody knows this. We all know this. This is his final one. One one final beta move before it's all over.”
Declares 'everybody knows' a specific social rule without evidence — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 14:30
Starts with 'everybody knows' like it's universal law, but it's just his opinion on chivalry 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses 'everybody knows' to present a subjective social norm as widely accepted fact, lending it an unearned authority without actually citing any source or common consensus beyond his own assertion.
Original quote: “everybody knows that a gentleman walks”
Defining 'supreme gentleman' then dismissing critics as 'offended' and needing to 'lay down' — Straw Man (20/100)
At 16:30
Sets up 'supreme gentleman' as the only valid standard, then preemptively attacks anyone who disagrees as 'offended' and 'mad.' Classic deflection. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker creates a subjective standard ('supreme gentleman') and then uses it to dismiss the subject. Immediately after, they pivot to attacking potential critics by claiming their 'alpha/beta' talk is 'tongue-in-cheek' and anyone offended just 'got their feelings hurt' and needs to 'lay down.' This is a straw man argument, dismissing valid criticism by mischaracterizing it as oversensitivity.
Original quote: “The thing is that it's just about it's about being a supreme gentleman. And is he being a supreme gentleman? Absolutely not. Absolutely [ __ ] not. So anyway, yeah. And by the way, if you if you're getting offended by this kind of language, you're probably like, we talk about the alpha and beta…”
Dismissing potential offense by claiming 'tongue-in-cheek humor' and telling critics to 'take your medicine'. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 16:30
Pre-emptively dismissing criticism as 'feelings hurt' and 'missing medicine' — classic straw man to avoid accountability for the language. 🙄💊
Why this score: The speaker attempts to deflect any potential criticism or offense by framing it as the listener being overly sensitive ('feelings hurt,' 'missing out on a dose of medicine'). This creates a straw man argument, attacking a caricatured version of a critic rather than addressing any legitimate points about the language used. It's a way to shut down dissent by pathologizing it.
Original quote: “And by the way, if you if you're getting offended by this kind of language, you're probably like, we talk about the alpha and beta stuff. I'm sorry to tell you, man. We're talking about this with tongue-in-cheek humor, right? We're having fun here. So, if you're not having fun and like you just got…”
Claiming changing a 'figurehead' doesn't change the 'organization,' implying no real impact. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 18:30
He's equating a leader with a 'figurehead' to dismiss any potential impact of a change. Not all leaders are just puppets. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker asserts that changing a 'figurehead' does not change the 'organization,' implying that leadership changes have no real impact. This creates a false equivalence by oversimplifying the role of a leader and dismissing the potential for new leadership to bring about significant organizational shifts or policy changes.
Original quote: “So if you change the figure head, you're not changing your organization.”
Claiming changing a 'figurehead' doesn't change the 'organization.' — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 18:30
Equating a political leader to a mere 'figurehead' and dismissing any potential impact of a change. That's a bold generalization. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by reducing a political leader to a 'figurehead' and asserting that changing them has no impact on the 'organization' (the party or government). This oversimplifies the role of leadership, ignoring how a new leader can indeed bring different policies, priorities, or public perception, even within the same party structure.
Original quote: “So if you change the figure head, you're not changing your organization.”
Comparing political change to wiping a raid team in a video game. False equivalence much? 🎮 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 20:30
Equating complex political shifts to a video game boss fight. Because, you know, it's *exactly* the same stakes. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses a video game analogy (wiping a raid team) to describe political victory, which oversimplifies the nuances and complexities of real-world political change. It's a fun comparison, but it's not a like-for-like.
Original quote: “Like, this is not anything different or anything special. It's not a victory until we wipe the raid team. Exactly.”
Assumes new guy will do same as old guy, predicting political stagnation. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 22:30
Predicting the future with absolute certainty based on 'vibes' — that's a bold assumption, not a forecast. 🔮
Why this score: The speaker is making a strong assumption about future political actions ('going to do all the same things') without providing any specific evidence or reasoning beyond a general cynical outlook. It's a confident prediction that lacks a solid basis.
Original quote: “This is the new guy who I assume is going to do all the same things that the old guy did.”
Imagining a 'badass' Cathedral of Notre Dame with black metal and spikes. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 24:30
Turning Notre Dame into a Goth fortress with spikes and black metal? That's not a renovation, that's a mood board for a metal album cover 🤘💀
Why this score: The speaker is clearly just riffing on an aesthetic idea, not making a serious architectural proposal. It's pure imaginative fun, leaning into a 'badass' vibe with materials like obsidian, black metal, and tungsten, and even referencing Warhammer 40k. It's a creative, over-the-top fantasy, not a claim to be fact-checked.
Original quote: “solid obsidian or like black metal. Literal black metal with spikes at the top like the Cathedral of Notradam. That's what I would do. Like cuz you got you got to make sure that you let them know, right? And marble. Yeah. Like Yeah. Like dark black marble. Exactly, bro. That'd be [ __ ] badass. We…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →