Pro War Trump AI Bots FLOOD Social Media | #Shorts 99%

4/27/2026, 11:31:01 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 71% saturation with 228 hits. Analysis detected 1,571 faulty-reasoning hits from 321 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 98.8% and a BS Rank of 99% (353 of 21,886 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 98.40% of the video peer group.

You can just use AI to create fake humans and push your pro-war propaganda. 
>> If this offends you, good. 
Keep scrolling. 
But if you love Trump, you just gained a follower. 
Hit follow. 
If this offends you, good. 
Keep scrolling. 
But if you love Trump, you just gained a follower. 
Hit follow. 
I'm totally offended. 
Very awkward cadence. 
It's both very dystopian and bleak. 
>> They're like embarrassingly bad now. 
>> Yeah. 
Yeah, but pretty soon it's going to be pretty hard to tell the difference. 
People already have a very hard time telling the bots from real people. 
And if your sense of where the public is on an issue comes from your interactions online, what happens when you can't tell whether some something's real or not, and you're just getting bombarded by these like beautiful women telling you that your position is correct? 
This is like the beginning of the end of like an era kind of thing. 
>> Remember Trump saying that the pro-Iranian government celebrations in the streets were AI? 
>> He might have believed it. Yeah. 
>> So it very not at all hard to imagine the president of the United States getting taken in by AI scams and believing, you know, whoever is telling, "Oh, that's not real. That's fake. Don't worry about that. Actually, they're on the verge of collapse." 
And so even someone who should have access to like the best information on the planet is, you know, a boomer adult like who brain who wants to believe whatever he wants to believe and is easily taken in by this crowd. 
We're already through the looking glass. 
We're already in the dystopia and um no one seems to be really leading the charge to do anything about the complete destruction of any sort of shared sense of reality um in our society. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.9%Breaking Points: 22.5%Confirmation Bias25.9%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 3.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 33.6%Breaking Points: 12.2%Availability Heuristic33.6%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 2.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 2.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Breaking Points: 10.1%Overconfidence Bias1.9%This article: 4.4%Breaking Points: 16.2%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.2%Breaking Points: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 6.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Breaking Points: 8.0%Pessimism Bias23.7%This article: 71.0%Breaking Points: 25.7%Negativity Bias71.0%This article: 0.9%Breaking Points: 3.4%Self-Serving Bias0.9%This article: 31.8%Breaking Points: 5.8%Fundamental Attribution Error31.8%This article: 2.2%Breaking Points: 1.1%Actor-Observer Bias2.2%This article: 3.4%Breaking Points: 6.3%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 6.2%Breaking Points: 3.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.2%This article: 2.8%Breaking Points: 3.4%Halo Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 1.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Breaking Points: 3.8%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 4.4%Breaking Points: 1.4%Primacy Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.4%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Breaking Points: 6.9%Ad Hominem14.0%This article: 3.1%Breaking Points: 3.5%Straw Man3.1%This article: 4.4%Breaking Points: 7.2%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 7.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 36.1%Breaking Points: 7.2%Slippery Slope36.1%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 1.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 47.0%Breaking Points: 22.9%Hasty Generalization47.0%This article: 1.2%Breaking Points: 1.7%Red Herring1.2%This article: 1.2%Breaking Points: 1.6%Bandwagon1.2%This article: 53.3%Breaking Points: 22.0%Appeal to Emotion53.3%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 5.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 6.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.8%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 5.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 1.9%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 6.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.6%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 7.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.2%Breaking Points: 1.6%Personal Incredulity2.2%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 4.8%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%Breaking Points: 3.5%Unattributed Quote4.4%This article: 14.3%Breaking Points: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection14.3%This article: 52.3%Breaking Points: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice52.3%This article: 10.9%Breaking Points: 2.8%Indoctrination10.9%This article: 26.8%Breaking Points: 3.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias26.8%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Breaking Points: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

321 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.4%attributed speech307writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-54.7 ptsWriter: 54.7%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-28.0 ptsWriter: 28.0%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Trump: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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