Welcome to the Age of Slopulism 25%

By Noah Smith42%

8/5/2026, 4:29:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 67 hits. Analysis detected 597 faulty-reasoning hits from 270 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.8% and a BS Rank of 25% (23,281 of 30,667 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.90% of the article peer group.

Would you like to see an example of a badly conceived policy? 
Here you go: 
The bill to require discounts for self-checkout will probably not pass. 
But what’s notable is that if this bill did pass, it would have exactly the opposite of the effect its creators want. 
The stated justification is that customers are doing unpaid labor by scanning and bagging their own groceries, and that this discount would compensate them for that effort. 
But the bill is part of a more general effort to disincentivize automation in the retail industry, in order to protect working-class jobs. 
Rhode Island’s Restrictions on Self-Service Checkout Stations Act , which requires grocery stores to have “a minimum of one manual checkout station in operation for every three self-service checkout stations,” takes effect at the start of 2027, and similar bills have been proposed in other states 
The standard objection to this bill, I suppose, would be that self-checkout already gives shoppers a discount, because it allows stores to save money on hiring human labor, and that these savings get passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. 
That argument is correct as far as it goes, but it means the debate ends up as one of technocracy versus populism—protecting the livelihoods of a few cashiers versus giving a huge number of consumers very slightly lower prices. 
There’s no simple or easy conclusion to that debate. 
But in the case of New York’s proposed self-checkout discount, the problem is that the bill would actually make grocery stores fire human cashiers in favor of more self-checkout. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.9%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 4.9%Confirmation Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%Noah Smith: 12.6%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias18.9%This article: 18.1%Noah Smith: 11.6%The FP: 8.5%Framing Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 21.1%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 9.3%Negativity Bias21.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error8.5%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 10.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man10.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 14.4%Noah Smith: 9.6%The FP: 2.3%False Dilemma14.4%This article: 8.1%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Slippery Slope8.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Noah Smith: 7.2%The FP: 7.8%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.5%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Begging the Question8.5%This article: 18.9%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.9%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.2%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.2%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.9%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Middle Ground15.9%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 2.2%Unattributed Quote10.0%This article: 1.1%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.1%This article: 24.8%Noah Smith: 13.3%The FP: 13.6%Biased Writer Voice24.8%This article: 8.5%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 2.4%Indoctrination8.5%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 2.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Noah Smith: 0.0%The FP: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.4%

270 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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