Let’s talk a moment about “pebbling,” which is the sharing of memes and little clippings from wherever you see them with individuals or groups. I do this with my siblings as a way to maintain bonds. There are things that I know will make them laugh and even though I know I might be irritating them in the middle of a work day or busy time, I pop something into our sibling text. I think we all know someone who does this perhaps a wee bit excessively, and sometimes we have to turn off notifications. Sometimes, if the person sends negative, nasty stuff, we may choose to block them.
Then there is a phenomenon of rage-bonding, where friends send an article that bears bad news for them and, they assume, for you. You have every right to ignore, delete, or respond as you see fit, according to your willingness and ability to engage at the moment, or ever! No one is entitled to your rage-engagement, or let’s call it “enragement.” And if you respond in a neutral or cursory way to such sharing, you do not need to accept or tolerate accusations that you are apathetic or colluding with evil or anything of the sort. We all have 24-hour access to a barrage of information. We have to choose how we consume this content, and curate our own information flow. I get a lot of interesting and even urgent missives and articles, and sometimes I simply say “thanks for letting me know.” Sometimes I do not respond at all. I try to have some priorities and areas of focus, which means that not everything makes it to my eyes.
I would not maintain a relationship with anyone who blew up at me and chastised me for failing to “engage meaningfully” with content they sent, because that behavior is disrespectful, controlling and emotionally perilous, ie, I do not consent to having anyone else’s distress transferred into my mind or body. Before we share anything, we might ask ourselves, “what is the purpose of this sharing? Do I want someone to be more informed? Am I asking them to take some kind of action?” Or is it more like, “This distressed me and I need companions in distress?” The first two options are fair and considerate. They still don’t entitle anyone to a response, but they’re legitimate. The second reason is non-productive and bears a closer look, by which I mean, knock it off.