Appeasement in the WW2 sense of “1) they were attacked by a movement with morally bad goals that were obvious to anyone who cared to look, 2) all the while, the bad people publicly falsely stated they just wanted a little bit of injustice (while telling their own people the real story), and 3) the victims who have no stomach for fighting back go along with it in the hopes that the appeasement offering will be the end of it.”
I’m thinking the problem element could be:
Avoid (i.e. evasion–I refuse to see their otherwise easy to see real motives; now now, let’s give them what they say they want and this problem will go away)
Inequity (i.e. they treat the people who are trying to kill/bully them better than they treat themselves; unfairness & unjust treatment–reward the evil and punish the good)
Evaluation (i.e. their snap judgment / first impression is that these Nazis seem like sensible people–they just want an inch, not a mile; if they were to reevaluate them more carefully then they would see their true nature)
Do any of these ring more true than others? Or others beyond these three?
Do you tend to think of historical examples like WW2, etc as fixed attitude (they’re stuck with this faulty belief) or activities (they are being trampled on and don’t fight back)? Other? My hunch is it’s a problematic fixed attitude. They would fight back if they thought differently and had the courage to judge the essential goals of both sides (their own side & the people who are attacking them).