sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina
For more than two years now I've been reading these forums, and a very used word here is appeasement.  But what does it mean to appease?

Let's take a look at some definitions:

Appease from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Merriam-Webster's wrote:

Appease:

1: to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm
2: to cause to subside : allay <appeased my hunger>
3: pacify, conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles
The common use given here to the word is the third one.  To buy off an aggressor by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles.  So, to be called appeaser, sounds pretty insulting.  But this is how you are called here if:

1-You don't agree with the War on Terror: you must be a terrorist appeaser if you don't agree with the invasion of Iraq.  After all that was a great success in order to stop terrorism.
2-You aren't an Islamophobe (place here fear of Islam or hate towards Islam): you must be a terrorist appeaser if you don't hate the Religion of hate.  You should already know that most, if not all, Muslims are radicals or terrorists, and all of them are to blame for terrorism.  If you don't acknowledge this, you are an appeaser.
3-You don't support Israel: you must be a terrorist appeaser if you don't agree with the human rights violations and the apartheid policies conducted by Israel.  How can you support those dirty Palestinians?  They don't deserve a place to live in.  Most of them, if not all, are terrorists and they deserve what they get.  Israel is a fair and peaceful state, and you should support their cause because it's PC.
4-You don't mind if Iran gets Nuclear Energy: you must be a terrorist appeaser if you buy that lie of Iran having Nuclear Energy.  Most Iranis, if not all, are terrorists, and they just want to get nukes to wipe Israel out of the map.  This must be true because GWB said so.
5-You support lifting the embargo against Cuba: you must be a Communist appeaser if you support lifting the embargo against Cuba.  What do you want?  Communism to spread all over the planet?
6-You believe in Global Warming: you must be an Al Gore appeaser if you buy this hippies BS.  It's all a myth, they are melting down the ice while they smoke pot just to complain about something, because they are hippies.
7-You don't support the right to bear arms: you must be a criminal appeaser if you don't support this right to defend your family from any criminal out there.  After all you can't leave that task to the police, they aren't as trained as you for that job.
8-You don't support death penalty: you must be a criminal appeaser if you don't agree with killing a person because a jury said so.  They can't be wrong, they don't make mistakes, what the hell do you want?  Let them fry all the criminals.  The system of Justice is perfect so no innocents are killed.
9-You are Pro-choice: you must be a baby killer appeaser if you are pro-choice.  Don't you know that once women get pregnant they must have their babies, even if they were raped.  Besides, the Vatican said so.
10-You are a Liberal: you must be an appeaser if you are a Liberal because, well everyone knows Liberals are appeasers.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-11 12:41:41)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California
Apparently it's used to deride political opponents lately which is a cheap-ass tactic because it's done in hind-sight.  In probably every case where one political foe accused the other of appeasing something they shouldn't, there's probably some form of appeasement that accusing foe did himself and is likely a hypocrite.
aj0404
It'll just be our little secret
+298|6787|Iowa...
i sense some anti-american/republican sentiment here...
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

aj0404 wrote:

i sense some anti-american/republican sentiment here...
It's called appeasement.
aj0404
It'll just be our little secret
+298|6787|Iowa...
i like sentiment better.
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7118|Dayton, Ohio
Correction - you are called an Appeaser if your solution to the problem means that you are giving in and sacrificing something along the way.  Your are not an appeaser be cause you do not want to go to war, only if your alternative means that you have given up somthing in order to pacify the terrorists.  You can have alteranative to war that do not include appeasement.
san4
The Mas
+311|7125|NYC, a place to live

sergeriver wrote:

10-You are a Liberal: you must be an appeaser if you are a Liberal because, well everyone knows Liberals are appeasers.
Liberals like to believe that virtually everyone in the world can be negotiated with if you understand them well enough. They don't like to think that there are enemies who will never compromise or relent.

People who call liberals appeasers believe that there is no point in trying to understand or negotiate with terrorists, communists, Iran, etc. because doing so will not cause those groups to compromise or relent in their opposition to the US and Western interests.

The Liberals are right.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

san4 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

10-You are a Liberal: you must be an appeaser if you are a Liberal because, well everyone knows Liberals are appeasers.
Liberals like to believe that virtually everyone in the world can be negotiated with if you understand them well enough. They don't like to think that there are enemies who will never compromise or relent.

People who call liberals appeasers believe that there is no point in trying to understand or negotiate with terrorists, communists, Iran, etc. because doing so will not cause those groups to compromise or relent in their opposition to the US and Western interests.

The Liberals are right.
Well said!  +1
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

It's what you do when you get married.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

san4 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

10-You are a Liberal: you must be an appeaser if you are a Liberal because, well everyone knows Liberals are appeasers.
Liberals like to believe that virtually everyone in the world can be negotiated with if you understand them well enough. They don't like to think that there are enemies who will never compromise or relent.

People who call liberals appeasers believe that there is no point in trying to understand or negotiate with terrorists, communists, Iran, etc. because doing so will not cause those groups to compromise or relent in their opposition to the US and Western interests.

The Liberals are right.
I have to point out that your definition of the rather general term 'liberal' is a little off. I can't imagine any 'liberal' on earth believing that the likes of Al Qaeda or other such illogical/deranged organisations can be or should be negotiated with.
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6987|CH/BR - in UK

It's always worth it, trying to understand someone. Most people are rational, just brought up in different ways. Occasionally, there are some people who go insane, but even some of those you can understand by seeing what drove them insane.

So in that way, I fully agree with san4. Good job, well said.

-konfusion
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6905
The most well know appeasement, Chamberlin's appeasement of Hitler during the 1930's was actually not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Hilter did not use any military force until 1939 with the invasion of Poland, all he did was reconstruct Germany's military (had been limited by British and French with the Treaty of Verssailes) to a point where it was still not even half the size of Britian's or France's and he took control of territories by mostly diplomatic means, the only time he didn't was when he annexed the Czechs, who did not resist the take over, even though they all wanted to remain independant.
bonedoc69
Member
+36|6848|Eugene, Oregon U.S.A.

Kmarion wrote:

It's what you do when you get married.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

I can't believe nobody has posted the video yet.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France
I think you went a little overboard there Serge.  Simply put, no one can find common ground if no one is willing to change their mind.

BTW, what are you going to talk about after November next year?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

Pug wrote:

I think you went a little overboard there Serge.  Simply put, no one can find common ground if no one is willing to change their mind.

BTW, what are you going to talk about after November next year?
Are you saying the Dems won already?  I'm not sure bout that.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

I think you went a little overboard there Serge.  Simply put, no one can find common ground if no one is willing to change their mind.

BTW, what are you going to talk about after November next year?
Are you saying the Dems won already?  I'm not sure bout that.
No, I'm saying whomever wins will not be carrying a magic wand...
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

I think you went a little overboard there Serge.  Simply put, no one can find common ground if no one is willing to change their mind.

BTW, what are you going to talk about after November next year?
Are you saying the Dems won already?  I'm not sure bout that.
No, I'm saying whomever wins will not be carrying a magic wand...
Anyway this thread isn't directed at the US.
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7084
Appeaser = Pussy
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:

Anyway this thread isn't directed at the US.
que?

seems the hot points are the current management's POV.

anyway, like i said - no hope of changing mind = someone is called a nazi
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Anyway this thread isn't directed at the US.
que?

seems the hot points are the current management's POV.

anyway, like i said - no hope of changing mind = someone is called a nazi
The current management isn't the US.
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7212|Noizyland

Unfortunatly the term Appeaser was tarnished with Neville Chamberlain who attempted to appease Hitler with the Munich Agreement of 1938, achieving "peace in our time". Obviously this never worked and it was seen that by giving appeasement to Hitler it was essentially showing weakness - Chaimberlain essentialy showed him that he could get away with what he wanted.
However seeing appeasement as a sign of weakness or 'pussy' is very short sighted. Pug said it best with "no one can find common ground if no one is willing to change their mind." One can fight their enemy into submission, but there will always be that underlying hostility which will inevidably spark up once more, no better example than World Wars One and Two. Germany was deemed to have been the aggressors of World War One and thus in being defeated they were to be punished severely and it is seen by most historians that these punishments are one of if not the leading cause of World War Two. Chamberlain wasn't wrong to appease Hitler, the Germans had been severely punished with the Treaty of Versailles and were therefor suffering a lot, in fact if Chamberlain or one of his predecessors had been sooner to appease Germany it is very likely that appeasement could have prevented World War Two.

Granted though that there are those with who appeasement will never work, I talk of extremists and terrorists who blow themselves and others up for the sole purpose of achieving the unachievable, for example the destrustion of the USA. Apeasement here would be incredibly difficult as these people are not prepared to change their opinions, but if they were and some common ground was found wouldn't it be far more successful than just killing them? Hell you know what it's like, you kill one terrorist and their family decide that this warrents revenge which results in several new terrorists to rise up and take the dead person's place. Nt to mntion the various balls'd-up attacks that results in people with no links to terrorism suddenly seeing the sense in the terrorists aims.

Appeasement is not showing weakness, it is merely an effort to end conflict. It is not always successful but when it is it succeeds on a level far beyond what superior armed forces can achieve. Using "Appeaser" as one of the many insulting labels, (an ever-increasing trend,) shows nothing but ignorance and fear.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7199

Ty wrote:

Using "Appeaser" as one of the many insulting labels, (an ever-increasing trend,) shows nothing but ignorance and fear.
Funny, that is my definition of appeasement.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ty wrote:

Using "Appeaser" as one of the many insulting labels, (an ever-increasing trend,) shows nothing but ignorance and fear.
Funny, that is my definition of appeasement.
Are you a dictionary?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

For me the term appeasement does not equate to diplomacy. In order for diplomacy to work both sides must be willing to give. When it is only one side doing the giving I think the balance is off and it leaves the other side in an unfair position.

When both sides are willing to compromise you will have a successful relationship. But that is not what I would call appeasement, that is cooperation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard