Dissent can bring with it pain, even death.

[hibbsa]

Why do people hate dissenters? What are they afraid of? Why do they

want to shut us up?

Traditions, Norms, Individuals, organizations, collectives, societies,
movements, ideologies, philosophies, moralities tend to permit/welcome
dissent of a given range of categories, but discourage, disapprove
of, react against dissent of another set of categories.
You ask why, Why do people hate [some] dissent. By and large it is
because they regard it as traitorous, immoral, evil, dehumanizing,
disgusting, vile, etc, etc. In most cases, dissenters who cross these
lines are given the 'benefit of the doubt'...they are assumed to be
acting out of ignorance, and provided with explanations and historical
reassurances the issues were resolved long ago, and this sort of
dissent is known to be harmful and immoral.
And so on and so on.
I am interested to know which components of what I describe above, do
not have parallels among Popperian's?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by 'parallels'? What
is it that you want to know?

What I'm asking you is whether the way popperians distinguish acceptable
from unacceptable dissent is consistent with the high level description
I provided.

What problem are you trying to solve?

I'm trying to help you solve the problem you are trying to solve...along
the lines of seeking an answer to 'why do people hate dissenters'

[Rami Rustom]

Post by hibbsa

Why do people hate dissenters? What are they afraid of? Why do they

want to shut us up?

Traditions, Norms, Individuals, organizations, collectives, societies,
movements, ideologies, philosophies, moralities tend to permit/welcome
dissent of a given range of categories, but discourage, disapprove
of, react against dissent of another set of categories.
You ask why, Why do people hate [some] dissent. By and large it is
because they regard it as traitorous, immoral, evil, dehumanizing,
disgusting, vile, etc, etc. In most cases, dissenters who cross these
lines are given the 'benefit of the doubt'...they are assumed to be
acting out of ignorance, and provided with explanations and historical
reassurances the issues were resolved long ago, and this sort of
dissent is known to be harmful and immoral.
And so on and so on.
I am interested to know which components of what I describe above, do
not have parallels among Popperian's?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by 'parallels'? What
is it that you want to know?

What I'm asking you is whether the way popperians distinguish acceptable
from unacceptable dissent

I didn't know there was such a thing as unacceptable dissent. What is that?

Post by hibbsa
is consistent with the high level description
I provided.

What problem are you trying to solve?

I'm trying to help you solve the problem you are trying to solve...along
the lines of seeking an answer to 'why do people hate dissenters'

-- Rami