I dont think many commentators on this blog have much trouble in finding words in which to disagree, head on, full on, eyebrow to eyebrow (and usually with courtesy .. lets not forget!). But I am struck how often straightforward disagreement (a generally healthy state of affairs, which is often the bed-mate of broad agreement) has been recently hi-jacked by a whole load of denials. I would like to put in a plea for good, old-fashioned diasagreemeht.
If you follow Twitter (or any of the follow up comments after Question Time or any such programme), you'll be familar with this one: "Mary Beard is out of her depth here", or only slightly more impolitely, "Stick to what you know, Mary". What this actually means is that "I think you are wrong", but as your day job is to teach Classics, I will say that there is this no point in hearing you on this topic.
It doesn't take much to see that there is a disequilibrium here. If Mary, as citizen, says something you dont like, then it's easier to say that she is 'out of her depth' than to confront her arguments (which may of course be wrong.. that's another matter) about migration, Corbyn, the EU or whatever. It's easier to say, "you dont know what you are talking about", than answer the citizenly question.