People Confront Men Believed to Be ICE Agents in Coffee Shop: “You Should Be Ashamed of Yourselves” 75%

By Haley48%

7/17/2026, 4:15:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 32.2% saturation with 174 hits. Analysis detected 1,113 faulty-reasoning hits from 541 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.5% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,618 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.30% of the article peer group.

A video showing a group of coffee shop customers confronting two men believed to be ICE agents has sparked debate online. 
In the clip, the group follows the men through the shop while chanting slogans and accusing them of separating families, prompting divided reactions from X users. 
Two ICE agents walk into a Starbucks. 
The second they approach the counter, a group of leftist Karens start recording and screaming at them to be ashamed of themselves. 
They follow the agents all the way out to their car, yelling that they “aren’t normal people” and calling… pic.twitter.com/gB44fSGKka 
- DocumentingLibs (@HistorianUSA1) July 17, 2026 
The video starts by showing two men standing at the counter to order drinks. 
Immediately, you can hear a woman say, “No ICE,” and “You should be ashamed of yourselves.” 
The men seem clearly annoyed by the display of free speech, quickly exiting the coffee shop after the confrontation. 
The group inside the Starbucks follows the alleged ICE agents outside, continuing to say things like, “Shame” and “How dare you.” 
They continue to chant “Abolish ICE” as the men navigate the parking lot. 
They enter an unmarked car, and the group says things like, “People have families just like you. 
What makes you think it’s okay that you go to your family but separate everyone else. 
What is wrong with you?” 
The car drives away as the protestors finish their chants. 
However, not everyone on X was convinced this video was genuine. 
The men were in plain clothes, and the vehicle they entered was unmarked. 
Some believed this was a set up video simply to put on social media. 
“Ok  how exactly did these fools know these were ICE agents? 
 they weren’t in uniform, their car had no emblem, and they didn’t identify themselves as such …This whole thing looks set up,” the commenter added, “Even with that, this is another example of a non peaceful protest.” 
Another person wrote, “HOW DO THEY KNOW THEY ARE ICE AGENTS??: I DON’T BELIEVE THIS… DEMS ARE PROFESSIONAL LIARS. 
IF THEY CAN FAKE A STEELE DOSSIER THEY CAN FAKE SOME ANTI ICE VIDEOS.” 
Other people in the comments were accusing the people in the Starbucks of being ‘leftists’ and ‘liberals,’ using cruel language that wouldn’t be appropriate to say to anyone’s face. 
It was clear they felt angry after watching this video. 
It is their right to, but the language was difficult to read for the average person. 
Some people were on the side of the protestors,  guess Im Karen then, good for them at Starbucks fuck those monsters. 
I didn’t vote for them shooting people down on the street for being brown. 
Fuck them and fuck you,” while others wrote things like, “Wow. 
I wish we had those leftists’ faces. 
They deserve to be named & shamed & their financial backers exposed.” 
Commenters remained divided over both the confrontation and the identities of the men in the video. 
The Daily Dot was unable to independently verify whether the men shown in the video were ICE agents. 
The claims made in the post are based solely on the account shared on X. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Haley: 3.3%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 2.6%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias2.6%This article: 2.6%Haley: 3.8%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic2.6%This article: 0.0%Haley: 1.3%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Haley: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 3.1%Haley: 6.1%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 1.7%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Haley: 1.6%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias2.6%This article: 31.8%Haley: 9.8%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias31.8%This article: 0.0%Haley: 1.4%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 3.1%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 5.4%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias5.4%This article: 5.4%Haley: 1.8%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Haley: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 27.4%Haley: 2.2%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem27.4%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.4%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 0.0%Haley: 1.9%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.1%Haley: 8.8%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization23.1%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.1%Haley: 2.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon4.1%This article: 32.2%Haley: 6.3%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion32.2%This article: 3.0%Haley: 1.2%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question3.0%This article: 7.0%Haley: 0.7%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.6%Haley: 1.3%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof4.6%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 6.3%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%Haley: 2.3%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground3.0%This article: 2.2%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity2.2%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 4.2%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.1%Haley: 2.7%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.1%This article: 9.4%Haley: 3.9%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice9.4%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 4.1%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

541 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers4.4%attributed speech517writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDocumentingLibs • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Dot • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Daily Dot

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words75% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%The Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%The Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%The Daily Dot: 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.