A form of verbalsplaining where you declare someone's argument "bullshit" and then proceed to explain why it's bullshit, again without engaging with the actual content. Bullsplaining is sensesplaining's more aggressive cousin—it doesn'
t just claim the argument lacks sense; it claims the argument is intentionally deceptive, manipulative, or worthless. The bullsplainer isn'
t just correcting you; they'
re exposing you, revealing your supposed deception to anyone listening. It's the rhetorical equivalent of calling someone a
liar and then giving a speech about why lying is
bad, without ever addressing what they actually
said. Bullsplaining is beloved by online commenters, political pundits, and anyone who's ever felt that "you're
wrong" wasn'
t dismissive enough.
Bullsplaining Example: "He posted a thread about economic inequality with sources and
data. The first response was a bullsplaining
essay about why his entire argument was 'bullshit'—no engagement with his sources, no counter-evidence, just a lengthy explanation of his supposed deception. The thread died. Bullsplaining had done its job: ending discussion without requiring
thought."