The threat from domestic terrorism is rising, but, with Republicans decrying the “deep state,” the F.B.I. is cautious about investigating far-right groups. Vigilantes are leaping into the fray.
Well, the “lever” would actually be fear, I suppose, and the “of what” is how you access/throw it. The threat of compromising information is public shame; if you’re using another kind of threat, then it’s not the compromising material being effective there.
Harm can be inflicted regardless of shame. One doesn’t need to be ashamed of a crime, for instance, for the consequences of being found out to carry weight. Hell, some of these “untouchables” probably brag about the stuff they get away with (at least in certain circles). It’s the inauthentic apology angle: “You’re not sorry for what you did, you’re sorry you got caught.”
I think you might be getting away from the original premise a bit - compromising information is only effective if the target is afraid of it coming to light, and that fear requires shame. That’s all I’m saying; of course there are other ways of influencing people, but we’re not talking about those, we’re talking about having dirt on someone and threatening to release it to get them to do something you want.
Edit: Mostly, I’m highlighting the fact because of how Donald Trump has normalised not being ashamed of being a piece of shit. “Damaging” stuff comes out all the time and he’s basically like “Yeah? So what?”, and somehow that works. You could also look to David Letterman though; someone tried to blackmail him with his affair, and his response was to address it on national TV (which, whatever else I think about the guy, that was a BAMF move).
For compromising information to be an effective lever, the subject must have the ability to feel shame.
Not necessarily. Fear is also an excellent motivator.
Well, the “lever” would actually be fear, I suppose, and the “of what” is how you access/throw it. The threat of compromising information is public shame; if you’re using another kind of threat, then it’s not the compromising material being effective there.
Harm can be inflicted regardless of shame. One doesn’t need to be ashamed of a crime, for instance, for the consequences of being found out to carry weight. Hell, some of these “untouchables” probably brag about the stuff they get away with (at least in certain circles). It’s the inauthentic apology angle: “You’re not sorry for what you did, you’re sorry you got caught.”
I think you might be getting away from the original premise a bit - compromising information is only effective if the target is afraid of it coming to light, and that fear requires shame. That’s all I’m saying; of course there are other ways of influencing people, but we’re not talking about those, we’re talking about having dirt on someone and threatening to release it to get them to do something you want.
Edit: Mostly, I’m highlighting the fact because of how Donald Trump has normalised not being ashamed of being a piece of shit. “Damaging” stuff comes out all the time and he’s basically like “Yeah? So what?”, and somehow that works. You could also look to David Letterman though; someone tried to blackmail him with his affair, and his response was to address it on national TV (which, whatever else I think about the guy, that was a BAMF move).