My Article: Spitting and Bullshitting. False Statements in Public Discourse

Anyone who has followed political debates in recent years knows the phenomenon: false statements are made openly and bluntly — without any attempt to conceal their untruth. Are these simply lies? Or is this what Harry Frankfurt described as bullshit?

My article in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie argues: neither.

I develop the concept of spitting — an independent form of false speech that differs categorically from both lying and bullshitting:

• Spitting ≠ Lying: The lie requires concealing its falsity. Spitting, by contrast, openly demonstrates the falsity of the statement. This is not accidental but constitutive of the speech act.
• Spitting ≠ Bullshitting (Frankfurt): Bullshit is indifferent to truth and falsity. Spitting deploys falsity deliberately — as an instrument of power.
• Spitting as a demonstration of power: The speech act communicates on a metalinguistic level that the speaker can override the truth-orientation of discourse. The assertion of “alternative facts” is a paradigmatic case.
• Political elective affinity: Certain political positions have a structural affinity to spitting due to their background assumptions.
• Countermeasures: The article concludes with reflections on how to counter the destructive effects of spitting in public discourse.

The article is open access and freely available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph-2025-0022

Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 2025, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 303–320.