True Distinction of Shame and Guilt

 Like the word power, the words shame and guilt have converged on propaganda. They are deliberately misused.

 The important distinction is that you can only shame yourself, and only by behaving dishonorably toward someone in good standing. Nobody can force you to break your own word - the idea of being shamed by someone else makes no sense.

 The proper use of 'guilt' only happens in 'guilt-tripping.' Notably this means stuff like 'fat shaming' should be 'fat guilt-tripping.' Maybe you want to guilt-trip some sluts for whoring out. You can't shame them, the point is they have already shamed themselves.

 It is impossible to be shameless. Shame is an objective property. A slut is not a prospective wife candidate whether sluts are ""shamed"" or not. Amusingly, the acts called 'shameless' are incredibly shameful. They bring tremendous shame on the actor. It remains shameful even if nobody acknowledges this shame.
 It's just evidence bro. It tells you this person is untrustworthy - their claims to be trustworthy only make it stronger evidence against. They shouldn't be trusted, and it's not only fine to act underhandedly toward them, it's in fact your duty. To not betray them is to betray honour itself. 

 Especially in a Democracy, reputation has little or nothing to do with shame. A bad reputation is shameful for the gossiper who spread it. Too cowardly to face the accused. A bad reputation is merely public guilt-tripping. 

 Judging someone you know only by reputation is irresponsible.

 I repeat: damaging someone's reputation isn't shaming them. It's scolding at best. If someone is dumb enough to fall for a false reputation, then that's a good thing, not a bad thing. That's the trash taking itself out. In Soviet America, bullets juke you.