‘He Picked a Lame Restaurant’: A Woman’s Date Cancellation Over a Venue Choice Has X Debating Dating Expectations in New York City 17%

By Sohini41%

7/9/2026, 11:51:22 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Appeal to Emotion, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.7% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 509 faulty-reasoning hits from 434 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.8% and a BS Rank of 17% (18,174 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.00% of the article peer group.

In a video shared on X by @Mericamemed, a woman speaks about dating expectations from men in New York City. 
Her comments drew criticism in the replies, with some calling her expectations unreasonable and others defending personal dating preferences. 
She said she canceled a date after the man she had matched with chose a restaurant she considered inadequate. 
She said the restaurant one chooses can actually affect the compatibility between the two people. 
“I canceled [the date], and here’s why: he picked a lame restaurant,” she said. 
“I take my restaurant game very seriously.” 
She then described the dining experience she expected and preferred upscale establishments. 
“Like, $3 signs minimum, preferably 4, white tablecloth, and you need to offer to send me a car to get there,” she added. 
She is so considerate. 
She just saved that guy months of misery. pic.twitter.com/BbSXKeMEsH 
- MERICA MEMED (@Mericamemed) July 8, 2026 
On X, some users criticized her expectations while others argued that people are entitled to their own dating preferences. 
Others mocked her position, questioning whether a restaurant choice should determine romantic compatibility. 
One wrote “[such] women all have the crazy eyes,” while others had sarcastic reactions to her. 
Some commenters focused on the financial expectations, as she prefers expensive restaurants and transportation arrangements. 
Some of them said they understood that choosing a restaurant can speak a lot about values, preferences, and effort in the early stages of dating. 
I absolutely can't stand the way she talks. 
She's so smug and full of herself. 
Omg this pisses me off. 
- Seth Screams (@SethScreams) July 8, 2026 
Research on dating behavior suggests first dates often involve navigating different expectations around cost, venue choice, and communication style. 
So while some people view expensive outings as thoughtful, others prefer casual settings that allow two people to have a conversation. 
The woman did not say more about the date, the person she was supposed to meet, or the restaurant involved. 
The Daily Dot could not independently verify the events described in the video. 
The details above reflect the account as shared on X by @Mericamemed. 
The identity of the woman and the man she referenced have not been confirmed. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post ‘He Picked a Lame Restaurant’: A Woman’s Date Cancellation Over a Venue Choice Has X Debating Dating Expectations in New York City appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sohini: 3.5%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.2%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 3.5%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Sohini: 4.8%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect8.3%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.7%Sohini: 6.7%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.0%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.7%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.8%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Sohini: 0.7%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.7%This article: 0.9%Sohini: 3.5%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.8%This article: 3.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.0%This article: 10.1%Sohini: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem10.1%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Sohini: 2.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 4.8%Sohini: 1.9%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.7%Sohini: 6.9%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization3.7%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.4%Sohini: 1.8%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon4.4%This article: 10.4%Sohini: 5.9%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion10.4%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.5%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.8%Sohini: 7.6%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal7.8%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.9%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.5%Sohini: 4.0%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote14.5%This article: 5.1%Sohini: 4.2%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 9.4%Sohini: 3.8%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice9.4%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Sohini: 1.8%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.1%

434 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers15%attributed speech370writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverage@Mericamemed • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage@Mericamemed • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageSeth Screams • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage@Mericamemed • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Dot • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daily Dot

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words28% of attributed speech58% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Daily Dot: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-17.0 ptsWriter: 17.0%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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