Guilt Tripping For Reblogs And Why It's Not Cool

The part in yellow is attacking you as a person, and saying that you must reblog in order to show that you care, when in fact reblogging will do absolutely nothing to show that you care or not. It says that by reblogging, you are being a good person and showing that you are a good person, and by NOT reblogging, you’re alright with the fact that things like this exist.

I’m not even digging too far into this, it says it right there. 

If that okay with you, then carry on with your day

I’m not even making this up; it directly attacks you as a person, and their kindness and compassion as a person. It accuses you of not being a good person, and of having no empathy, and of not caring about anyone else.

The carry on with your day is very dismissive as well; implying that if you don’t care, you’ll be able to go with your day without any sort of guilt or remorse for not reblogging, because that is how little you care about issues like this.

If you agree this is unacceptable and okay, then reblog and spread the word

It’s saying there, that by reblogging this, you’d be doing something important. The fact of the matter is, it wouldn’t. Reblogging this will do nothing to change anon hate, and will help no one.

Skipping straight to the part in red: Using the word should is giving advice or recommendation, telling that it’s imperative and very important that you reblog this; it adds a sense of urgency to what is being said. It’s used to say that someone must do something, along the lines of it being the responsibility or obligation to do whatever the speaker is ordering of the other.

It then goes on and says that it won’t make your blog ugly, and that every type of blog, no matter what you reblog, should reblog this. By saying this, it takes away your right to refuse to reblog it; it says: you have no excuse for not reblogging it, because it won’t make your blog look ugly, and this is something that every type of blog should have. Every reason for not reblogging it is then made to be meaningless, because according to this, there is no excuse for not reblogging.

By wording it in a way that mentions ugliness, it implies that anyone who doesn’t reblog is materialistic and cares only about things like outward appearances.

And, returning to the part in blue: exactly how is this helping? If it was actually intended to help, it would provide resources that could be useful to someone who was dealing with this sort of harassment or abuse, or resources that could help. As it is, it does absolutely nothing and is utterly meaningless.

Suicide already is, unfortunately, something that affects a lot of people. It’s a tragic thing that is extremely relevant to a lot of people. That in itself is enough to catch your attention and gain sympathy.

It starts off being worded as an inevitable fact that’s made relevant. The numbers make it a concrete fact, and drive in how this isn’t just a vague statistic, although it does make it real. As a note, though, there isn’t a source or this fact.

The fact that they say that it’s a result of bullying is in itself vague and turn everything into an us vs them situation. It makes a villain and turns it into a victim vs aggressor situation where it’s so clearly black and white.

Underneath that is a ‘reblog if you care’. This leads to the implication that you must reblog, because if you don’t then clearly you are a horrible human being who has no sympathy or empathy or consideration for the aforementioned victims. It is challenging your morality, and says that in order to be considered a good person you must reblog this, or else you obviously don’t care.

The ‘always’ is just another way to attempt to guilt you into reblogging, saying that this person always does reblog to show that they care, setting it up as a comparison; if you care, you’d reblog the way I did, and if you don’t, then clearly I am a better person than you.

The sad pictures just are an attempt to pull at your heart and emotions, to make you try to sympathise with the cause some more.

And finally, my particular pet peeve: If you don’t reblog you have no heart. It won’t kill you to have this on your Tumblr.

This is a direct attack against your morals as a human being. It is an attack, and an accusation, saying you MUST reblog this or therefore you’re a heartless person. It invalidates any good that you might do and says that you have to prove yourself to be a good person.

It is an attack, and a very emotional one. It is a challenge, saying that you as a person are horrible. This plays off of your sense to want to be right and to want to do the right thing, and to want to be a good person and to be perceived to not be a horrible human being, and makes you feel as though you must reblog this in order to do that.

Considering that the topic at hand is suicide, it strikes me as particularly morbid that they say that it won’t kill you to have this on your blog.

Notice that there is a complete lack of sources or statistics. Only one fact is presented, and there is no way to tell whether or not it’s true, or if it’s just something that someone made up for the sake of getting notes.

Another thing that’s missing is a way to actually do some good. Regardless of how much you care or how much you don’t care, reblogging a post won’t do anything to help on the matter.

If the person who made this post, or anyone else for that matter, truly cared about doing good or preventing such tragedies from occurring, they would have included useful links such as credible sources, causes of teenage suicide, as is this case, the numbers of suicide prevention hotlines or websites, tips that people could use to stop bullying or ways that people could help, if they fear that someone is at risk. This post provides none of these.

In conclusion, reblogging this will in no way show that you care, because it literally does nothing and has absolutely no effect. It does, however, try to guilt you into reblogging by attacking your morals and playing off of your sympathies.