‘Your Boy Is Right in This Situation’: Dad Called His Son Out for Mowing a Hill the Wrong Way  Turns Out He Might Have Been the One Who Was Wrong 5%

By Sohini41%

7/13/2026, 12:52:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Hindsight Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 6.6% saturation with 32 hits. Analysis detected 244 faulty-reasoning hits from 487 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.5% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,135 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.10% of the article peer group.

A video shared on X by user @angelojello74 shows his 20-year-old son mowing a sloped residential lawn with a red Toro push mower. 
In the comments, users debated whether the technique shown was unsafe or simply practical. 
The clip showed the son mowing a grassy incline in a suburban neighborhood. 
Users were debating whether the mower should be pushed up and down the hill or moved across the slope. 
Some argued that mowing horizontally across a hill can increase the risk of a rollover, while others defended the commonly used method, which can help create cleaner mowing patterns. 
“Yeah, go sideways on a hill; sounds like a good way to flip a lawnmower,” one user wrote. 
The poster, meanwhile, aired his grievances about the fact that his son “will [never] listen to me.” 
He believed “[his] son might be dumb.” 
Don’t get pissed at me for what I’m about to say. 
But sometimes I think my son might be dumb as shit. 
Who cuts a lawn and goes up and down a hill. 
I’ve told him for years that you go side to side. 
Just proves my point that none of my kids will ever listen to me. pic.twitter.com/dU33sdRgWW 
- jello (@angelojello74) July 13, 2026 
Another commenter disagreed, saying, “I like to keep my mower lines straight and clean. 
Almost impossible to do going sideways on a hill. 
Your boy is right in this situation!!!” 
The original poster acknowledged that mowing straight up and down a slope also carries risks. 
The father said he had worked on a golf course and had experience in turf management, which he cited as the basis for his preference. 
One commenter questioned whether the father had actually shown his son the preferred technique. 
“Did you actively show him, help him, and provide constructive feedback along with reasons why your way is better? 
Or did you just shout at him 50 times to do it your way without explanation or demonstration?” 
a user wrote. 
Man don't slag your family online, esp with pics. 
- JakeR (retired from trolling) (@vmpops) July 13, 2026 
According to the U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), injuries involving riding and walk-behind lawn mowers include incidents linked to slopes and loss of control. 
So manufacturers typically advise users to avoid mowing on steep slopes and to use the specific safety information or manual that they provide with their equipment. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post ‘Your Boy Is Right in This Situation’: Dad Called His Son Out for Mowing a Hill the Wrong Way  Turns Out He Might Have Been the One Who Was Wrong appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.3%Sohini: 3.5%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias2.3%This article: 2.3%Sohini: 1.3%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 3.4%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.4%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.0%dailydot.com: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 4.8%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.0%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: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 6.5%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias6.6%This article: 3.7%Sohini: 1.7%dailydot.com: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%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: 0.0%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 3.5%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.3%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: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Sohini: 2.4%dailydot.com: 2.0%Ad Hominem3.7%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.1%Sohini: 2.6%dailydot.com: 1.8%Appeal to Authority5.1%This article: 3.7%Sohini: 1.9%dailydot.com: 2.3%False Dilemma3.7%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: 5.3%Sohini: 6.8%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.7%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.7%Sohini: 5.9%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.9%dailydot.com: 1.4%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: 1.8%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: 0.0%Sohini: 7.7%dailydot.com: 7.3%Anecdotal0.0%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: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%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: 0.0%Sohini: 4.0%dailydot.com: 4.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.7%Sohini: 4.2%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.7%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 3.7%dailydot.com: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.5%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: 3.7%Sohini: 1.7%dailydot.com: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

487 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers21%attributed speech383writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageangelojello74 • 11 words • 0.0% coverageangelojello74 • 11 words • 0.0% coverageangelojello74 • 11 words • 0.0% coverageangelojello74 • 11 words • 0.0% coverageangelojello74 • 15 words • 0.0% coverageangelojello74 • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJakeR • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJakeR • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageConsumer Product Safety Commission • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

angelojello74

74%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words63% of attributed speech35% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%angelojello74: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%angelojello74: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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