TED: Is civility a sham? | Teresa Bejan

The speaker discusses the concept of civility, initially viewing it as insincere but later recognizing its essential role in tolerant societies. The talk explores the offensive nature of disagreement, the misuse of civility as a tool for disengagement, and the historical context of civility crises. The speaker introduces 'mere civility' as a necessary virtue for managing fundamental disagreements without destroying the possibility of a shared future.

What prompted the author to write a book about civility?

How did the author initially feel about the concept of civility?

What historical context does the author provide regarding civility?

According to the author, why is civility essential in tolerant societies?

What does the author suggest about the relationship between disagreement and civility?

What does the author argue about the current discourse on civility?

What historical figure does the author reference in relation to the crisis of civility?

In what ways does the author believe civility can be misused in political discourse?

What does the author mean by 'mere civility'?

How does the author differentiate between civility and politeness?