Tolerance, Appeasement, and the Devolution into Oppression: A Commonsense Analysis
- Charles "Ghost" Coutts
- 1 minute ago
- 6 min read
(Opinion)
Continuing our theme of understanding the true meaning of words that have been "re-defined" in order to create confusion and shut down all opposing viewpoints, we are going to use commonsense to analyze how tolerance can turn into appeasement which eventually devolves into oppression and tyranny.
Tolerance is rightly celebrated as a vital aspect of a peaceful society, I think we can all agree on that point. It is what allows various perspectives to coexist harmoniously. However, this concept can shift significantly depending on the circumstances, transforming into a more troubling notion known as appeasement. By examining the origins, definitions, and psychological aspects of tolerance and appeasement, we can uncover critical insights about power dynamics, control, and oppression. In this post, we will explore how tolerance can deteriorate into appeasement—a transition that has resulted in tyranny throughout human history.
All of my content, whether it's written, video, or any other type of media, is intended solely for educational and informational purposes. You are not obligated to agree with me.
For a real world, example go HERE.
The word tolerance comes from the Latin "tolerare," meaning "to bear" or "to endure." In modern terms, it typically denotes the acceptance of differing perspectives, especially beliefs and lifestyles that may not match our own. Tolerance is often evident in multicultural societies that celebrate a variety of cultural and spiritual traditions.
Studies indicate that tolerance is closely linked to empathy and open-mindedness. Research from the University of Michigan revealed that children who experience diverse situations and interactions are 60% more likely to develop tolerant attitudes. These attitudes promote social harmony and improve individual well-being, but the boundary between true tolerance and harmful appeasement can be very narrow.
Appeasement, derived from the Old French term "apaiser," means "to calm" or "to pacify." However, it holds a more negative connotation than tolerance. While appeasement can suggest compromise for peace, it also denotes yielding to the demands of aggressors, thereby sacrificing one's principles and eventually their freedom.
Appeasement may arise from fear, a need for approval, or a desire to maintain harmony. When individuals or nations choose to appease tyrants, it always signifies a loss of agency (individuality) and control, perpetuating dangerous power imbalances that inevitably lead to conflict, cause mass suffering, and quickly result in widespread human rights violations.
This isn't just my opinion, everyone; it's all documented, and I looked into it long before the era of videos or digital media. The scent of old books, lemon-scented polish, and warm microfiche will always evoke those memories. I used to spend hours in the old library, my refuge from the outside world's noise. Unfortunately, they demolished that library to make way for a strip mall—progress, I suppose. Anyway, I digress.
.
Understanding, and validating how tolerance can devolve into appeasement we need look no further than our own (as a species) historical precedents. Conditions that permit tolerance can easily be manipulated by those with ulterior motives, leading to capitulation. The late 19th and 20th centuries provide numerous examples where tolerance transitioned into appeasement and eventually into oppression. A significant case is the build-up to World War II.
Let's build a basic timeline of how this tolerance turned into appeasement and ended in oppression
Early 1920s – Rise of Totalitarian Regimes: Economic instability post-World War I leads nations to adopt tolerant attitudes toward emerging authoritarian figures.
1933 – Hitler Comes to Power: Initially, Western leaders show tolerance towards Hitler's regime, turning a blind eye to blatant human rights violations in the hope of stability.
1936 – The Appeasement Era Begins: The remilitarization of the Rhineland occurs. France and the UK, still maintaining a stance of tolerance, ignore the violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
1938 – Munich Agreement: British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement peaks as he allows Germany to annex the Sudetenland, convinced it will satisfy Hitler.
1939 – World War II Erupts: The failed policy of appeasement collapses as Germany makes further demands, resulting in widespread conflict.
1940s – Consequences of Appeasement: Nazi expansion not only leads to war but also gives rise to oppressive regimes across Europe, culminating in the genocide of millions.
As we can see this timeline illustrates how the initial gesture of tolerance devolved into a culture of compliance, where the hope for peace blinded many to the realities of impending oppression. By now we should have a pretty good understanding of the methodology involved so let's dig into my favorite part, the psychology behind it all.
(These are my opinions based on my own studies and conclusions.)
To grasp the psychology behind this transition, we need to explore concepts such as cognitive dissonance (which I have talked about many times) and one I haven't called the bystander effect. Those practicing tolerance typically operate under an inherent and false belief in humanity's goodness. Unfortunately, tyrants exploit this false belief, turning potential allies into reluctant accomplices.
NOTE: The previous video mentioned the Asch Study or Line Conformity Experiment. You can learn more HERE.
This passivity ultimately supports the rise of tyranny.
The 20th century is littered with examples illustrating how appeasement breeds tyranny. Beyond Hitler, figures like Joseph Stalin exemplified how initial leniency can lead to disaster.
Stalin was initially tolerated by Western powers who believed he could counterbalance Hitler. This acceptance only enabled him to commit horrendous acts against his own people and others, further demonstrating how appeasement legitimizes tyranny.
As tolerance shifts into appeasement, personal and collective freedoms erode. Individuals who once thrived under a tolerant society may find their rights severely diminished. This dangerous trajectory resembles a slide toward subjugation, where autonomy is compromised. The consequences manifest in several ways we can see in modern times.
Political Oppression: In authoritarian regimes around the world, the voices of dissidents and those who dare to oppose the ruling government are systematically silenced through a variety of repressive measures. This silencing often takes the form of censorship, where media outlets are controlled, and dissenting opinions are either banned or heavily monitored. Journalists who attempt to report on government abuses or who express critical viewpoints may face intimidation, harassment, or even imprisonment. Moreover, the legal frameworks in place are frequently manipulated to target opposition figures. Laws may be enacted that criminalize dissent, label protests as unlawful gatherings, or designate certain speech as subversive.
Cultural Erasure: The diverse tapestry of thoughts and cultures disintegrates when tolerance wanes, leading to a profound loss of identity and heritage. This phenomenon occurs when dominant (not necessarily a majority) groups impose their narratives and values upon marginalized communities, often resulting in the systematic suppression of unique traditions, languages, and customs. As tolerance diminishes, the rich variety of human expression becomes increasingly vulnerable to homogenization, where the vibrant colors of individual cultures fade into a monochromatic existence dictated by the prevailing societal norms.
Economic Exploitation: Government control over resources often results in stark inequalities and widespread oppression. This phenomenon occurs when a ruling authority (again, not necessarily a majority) exerts significant influence over the allocation and management of natural, financial, and human resources within a nation or region. Such control can lead to a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a select few, typically those aligned with or benefiting from the government. As a result, marginalized groups and the general populace may find themselves deprived of equitable access to essential resources, such as land, water, and employment opportunities.
This still needs to be examined in greater depth though because the line between tyranny and freedom is extremely thin, and actions from either side can be perceived similarly. So, how do we decide which side to support? We should evaluate the long-term outcomes of each and choose the scenario we prefer to live in. It's quite straightforward, yet many fail to think even this deeply. They view the world as a snapshot of the present, not realizing that reality will change the moment that snapshot is taken, and over time, it becomes just a memory. What is happening today won't be the same 50 years from now, so we need to lay the groundwork for that future today, as well as making sure we create the right kind of future for our desendents to ensure they too get to live in a free country. I take that responsibility seriously.
We'll have to live in the future shaped by the world we're creating now, so it's crucial to get it right.
There is an incredibly intricate relationship between tolerance, appeasement, and the descent into oppression which offers vital lessons about the fragility of our freedom such as it is. The gap between acceptance and capitulation is perilously thin. History teaches us that true tolerance must be coupled with a firm commitment to resist oppression from either side of the spectrum. The closer to the center we stay the less chaotic our existence will be. As we as a society confront ever more complex social issues, understanding these psychological dynamics encourages not just true tolerance, but active resistance to tyranny. A society aware of the risks of appeasement can better safeguard its freedoms and prevent gradual subjugation.
Through this commonsense lens, we learn that while tolerance is a valuable virtue, it must never slide into appeasement. History has proven time and time again that transition inevitably opens the door to tyranny whether it be tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the majority, tyranny is tyranny, and it is antithetical to freedom of any kind because it abhors anything it does not or cannot control.
Something to think about, until next time. ~Ghost