4 ms·

Thank you for making my first point: No two people agree. Unfortunately, you haven't offered a superior definition. Most people would agree a preexisting arra

• Retra 8y ago
  Openly disclosing the threat because it is the kind of behavior that falls within the bounds of social norms pretty much makes it ok. It is harder to blackmail people out in the open. In any case, I think the line is marginally less blurry when you consider the blackmailer's intentionally maintained ability to do harm with the unreleased information. The blackmailer must have information which is known to be harmful to reveal, and they use the threat of that harm to coerce something out of the harmed party. It's not really about secrets per se, but secrets which can be leveraged to do harm.
• ameister14 8y ago
  Oh, cool: the 'do you have any better idea?' response. yes, I actually do. Blackmail is the attempt to coerce someone into doing something they do not desire to do by threatening with the exposure of information they do not want exposed. How is that? better than: To blackmail is to threaten to do something otherwise legal (usually divulge information) unless you are paid. By the way, if I said that genocide was the killing of another being, and you said that was a terrible definition, I probably wouldn't complain if you didn't have another definition, you know, because genocide is pretty well defined (as is blackmail)