Mark Ruffalo won’t even talk to Jews anymore - Blogs 93%

By Andrea Widburg87%

7/23/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 88.4% saturation with 402 hits. Analysis detected 2,545 faulty-reasoning hits from 455 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88% and a BS Rank of 93% (1,615 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.60% of the article peer group.

Although there were definitely non-Jews who were a major part of Hollywood's early years, it was Jews who turned their primitive New York Nickelodeons into the big Hollywood studios that created American entertainment for decades -pro-American, pro-Christian, philosemitic entertainment, I might add. 
Mark Ruffalo , a working-class kid, went to this Jewish-created city and industry, got himself a career, and is now worth at least $35 million. 
He's also a passionate antisemite who cannot even tolerate speaking to Jews. 
Ruffalo's antisemitism is purely a product of his leftism. 
He's bought into the dishonest narrative that the so-called "Palestinians" (the descendants of the raff and scaff of the Ottoman Empire who drifted into a malarial wasteland beginning in the 1930s) are the true (and brown) indigenous people of the land, while the Jews, who have continuously occupied that land for 3,400 years, are white, colonial invaders. 
This historically false narrative means that Ruffalo can ignore the October 7 massacre, ignore Israel's three-week delay after the massacre as it desperately sought a peaceful resolution to getting the lead terrorists to justice, ignore Israel's exquisite care to protect enemy Gazan civilians even as Hamas hid its fighters and armories among them, ignore how Israel fed the enemy population throughout the war, and ignore the fact that, under "genocidal" Israel's aegis, the populations in Gaza and the West Bank have steadily expanded for generations. 
That's how we get to the point at which Ruffalo, speaking to Mehdi Hasan (an American-hating Brit who supports terrorist organizations but was nevertheless given American citizenship in 2020), proudly boasts about how he maintains his adamantine ignorance. 
It turns out that he simply refuses to speak to Jews who challenge his worldview: 
Mark Ruffalo says he's done talking to Jewish actors. 
Hey Mark, if that's really how you feel, maybe you should stop playing the Hulk too. 
After all, the character was created by two Jewish legends, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. 
Or is that different because it works in your favor?... pic.twitter.com/LAafgLODmE 
- Haim gozali (@HAIM__GOZALI) July 21, 2026 
The Incredible Hulk is a fictional character whose anger turns him into a green giant who exists to exact vengeance on evildoers. 
Two Jewish men created him, and one of their inspirations was the Golem , a mythological Jewish character that protects the Jews from harm. 
A large part of Ruffalo's wealth comes from pretending to be this character in movies. 
However, Ruffalo, while apparently marinating in that same anger despite his extraordinarily fortunate life (thanks to the Jews), doesn't channel that anger into justice. 
Instead, he is a grotesque monster ready to join the evildoers in their dire deeds. 
Image created using AI. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 45.3%Andrea Widburg: 14.2%American Thinker: 10.6%Confirmation Bias45.3%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.7%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic18.7%This article: 11.2%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic11.2%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Andrea Widburg: 6.7%American Thinker: 7.1%Framing Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Andrea Widburg: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.8%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias3.5%This article: 54.5%Andrea Widburg: 17.2%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias54.5%This article: 5.3%Andrea Widburg: 1.7%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 7.9%Andrea Widburg: 4.4%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Andrea Widburg: 3.7%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 5.8%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.6%Halo Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect17.6%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Andrea Widburg: 9.5%American Thinker: 5.6%Ad Hominem16.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 3.7%American Thinker: 4.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Andrea Widburg: 6.4%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 4.4%Andrea Widburg: 5.0%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma4.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 3.1%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.2%Andrea Widburg: 18.2%American Thinker: 16.8%Hasty Generalization9.2%This article: 18.7%Andrea Widburg: 1.3%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring18.7%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.7%Andrea Widburg: 9.1%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion27.7%This article: 3.3%Andrea Widburg: 3.6%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question3.3%This article: 5.3%Andrea Widburg: 4.0%American Thinker: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.3%This article: 3.5%Andrea Widburg: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque3.5%This article: 37.1%Andrea Widburg: 5.0%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof37.1%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 17.8%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division17.8%This article: 23.5%Andrea Widburg: 3.0%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal23.5%This article: 12.5%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman12.5%This article: 2.4%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 18.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy18.0%This article: 2.6%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote2.6%This article: 10.8%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection10.8%This article: 88.4%Andrea Widburg: 31.0%American Thinker: 22.9%Biased Writer Voice88.4%This article: 40.4%Andrea Widburg: 5.3%American Thinker: 5.9%Indoctrination40.4%This article: 2.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.0%This article: 12.5%Andrea Widburg: 14.4%American Thinker: 14.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

455 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers3.5%attributed speech439writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 85 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageMark Ruffalo • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageHaim gozali • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Ruffalo

0%flagged-word coverage
9 attributed words56% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%47.5%95.0%Biased Writer Voice-91.6 ptsWriter: 91.6%Mark Ruffalo: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-41.9 ptsWriter: 41.9%Mark Ruffalo: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Mark Ruffalo: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%Mark Ruffalo: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Mark Ruffalo: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Mark Ruffalo: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.