#potential discourse

Red flags are warning signs that someone is dangerous or toxic. Things like "snaps at people working in food service," "brushes you off when you try to talk about something that bothered you," or "doesn't believe in therapy." It doesn't have to always mean romantic relationships, but that's where it's often used.

Someone who gets the mushroom cave in Stardew Valley instead of the bat cave is not dangerous or toxic. (Yes, I have seen that.)

Someone who's into (SAFE, SANE, AND CONSENSUAL) kinks you're not is not dangerous or toxic.

Someone who eats food a way you don't is not dangerous or toxic.

I decided to compile a bunch important/useful posts into one big list so it's easy to find resources I may have posted or reblogged.

"Through a rapist's eyes" - what rapists look for and how they attack, along with a list of ways to deter them and defend yourself

"Life skills" - ways to avoid kidnappers, rapists, or other attackers

"Pride month" - a reminder of the validity of bisexuality

"About that law in Tennessee..." - some stuff about a transphobic law that was passed in Tennesee

"Christianity: fear or faith?" - light debate about the nature of christianity and its teachings

"Fanfiction guidelines to help avoid discourse" - a list of what some would call the Unwritten Rules

"Safe sex" - the problem with sex ed classes

"Helpful tip" - quick tip on leaving toxic situations

"If you're looking for a sign"

"Kent State" - school shooting tw

"Karen" - the problem with being/not being a Karen

"You're brave" - ableism comic

"Stop Recording" - information about reporting/recording police brutality

"Red Flags" - tw: abusive relationships

"Reminders for anxious or depressed content creators"

"Safe sex" (again) - specifically about anal sex

"Mental illness is NOT"

"What happens when you die?" - tw; suicide

"Abortion info" - Aidaccess

"To anyone chatting online" - tips about internet friendships and meeting with someone for the first time

"Abortion is healthcare"

"When "terfs dni" is in your bio" - the deal with transmisogynists

"Attention content creators" - tag problems

"How to adult" - life advice about important things

"Tumblr tags iOS"

"Educate yourself" - life before google

"Tumblr tag problems" - true/false statements

"Banned tags" - the Listᵀᴹ

"Transandrophobia" - selfish transmisogyny

"do not interact (dni)" - internet safety

"exposing the losers .tumblr" - tumblr virus/hacking awareness

"Salvation Army" - this is not 'salvation'

"Genres" - reminder that all genres are valid (yes, genre, not gender, but that too)

"Dangerous websites" - totally illegal post that definitely doesn't contain valuable information

"Salvation Army 2" - really? homophobic shit on christmas?

"Oppressed being oppressors" - lateral aggression

"Nonbinary tips for young enbies" - or nonbinary people who only recently came out and could use a tip or two

"Tumblr tags" - a fourth one about tumblr tags? @staff get your shit together

"Age indicators"

"Autism awareness" - listen to what the people with autism say about autism, not what the neurotypical people say about autism

"Kink Shaming"

"Sex, gender, presentation"

"Don't do any of this" - a bunch of things you totally should NOT do if adobe says what you've got is outdated and you should buy the newer worser version

"Opressive religion" - it's not just christianity

"Vagina owners" - is it period cramps or appendicitis?

"The 19th century Jewish trans man from Ukraine"

"Fanfiction" - smut or no smut?

"New blogs" - tumblr newbies: how to not get blocked on sight based on pfp alone (because it happens)

"New blogs 2" - how tumblr works for dummies

"Give black women credit" - hhhhhh black girls are so pretty

"How to put out a fire"

"Age of consent"

"Billionaires" - the redacted bible

"Trans people!"

I really haven't been that worried about it overall, but I do have some rules I work by:

1. I do not write a story centered on a lived experience I have not had. Chris is an autistic whumpee, but his story isn't about his autism. It informs everything about him, of course, but that isn't the same. I mention and reference real experiences, but I don't center the plot on them. And when it comes closest to that, I pull back and write from Ronnie's perspective, or Nat or Jake's, because I feel more capable of writing from their perspectives on those moments than his.

2. Ryan is not targeted because he is a black man. His story is not about being black. He just is. I do not write Ryan's story about being black in America, because I will never live that experience. Ryan is targeted because of his brother, in the end. The story is about them as siblings first and foremost. I would have hesitated heavily before writing him as the primary whumpee.

3. I stay away from specific variations on a story that I know are not my place to tell. As @card-games-and-pain noted, there are tons of writers out there telling these stories from places of experience and expertise, and they deserve to have their voices lifted up and emphasized.

The only place where I've come close to serious concern has been with the safehouse raid and its obvious parallels with state-sanctioned police violence that is, at least in the USA, overwhelmingly leveraged against communities of color. That's one reason I was very careful to make it clear that Jake and Nat were dealing with WRU, who operated with a dubious legality using cops as a shield. But obviously there are still probably some ways I could write it better, if I revisited it? I think about that from time to time.

I also think it's valuable to take the time and do your research and I don't mean "find your friends who are people of color/neurodivergent/disabled/etc and ask questions", because trust me - they are probably expected to do a ton of emotional labor explaining themselves IRL already. I mean do some reading! The world is full of information, and if people are here to volunteer it, that's great - Chris is heavily informed by autistic readers who chose to volunteer information and give me feedback, recommendations, etc - but I wouldn't have demanded that info. It was my responsibility to do the work to tell the story the right way, which is why I held off so long on giving him that specific identity until I took my time to research. You can slap a sticker that says Autism on something but that doesn't mean you did the work - as the current debacle with Sia makes profoundly, horrifyingly clear.

But also - I am a white cisgendered woman. I am speaking from how I have personally worked with my writing, and I'm not an expert! Just some lady doing stuff on the internet. You shouldn't take what I'm saying here as authoritative! There are plenty of writers of color, or from the disabled community, etc, who are talking about this here! It's worth digging around and doing the research.

I think there's a big difference between writing a diverse group of characters and writing diversity.

You should definitely aim for the former - but I would take much greater care with the latter.

I'll +1 that, but I'll add a couple caveats.

It depends on the RPer: their personal interests in the character and that character's story might not necessarily be canon compliant. Some people really just wanna be degenerates and ERP weird scenarios with their OCs. Which is fine. That's a thing they're allowed to do. Others strive to understand the character because they're passionate about it, and they want to capture the things they love about a character. It's also possible to be both of these RPers at once, and that's okay, too. The RPer's intentions and motivations matter.

It depends on the RP: is it canon-compliant, canon-divergent, could-be-canon, AU, OOC, non-canon, or something else entirely? Are there OCs involved? The setting matters, and atop that the group dynamic matters. Is the RP group a serious or casual group? Is it both? How do they present themselves?

I think RPers get a bad rap as a result of RPers that operate OOC or non-canon presentations of a character without acknowledging that their RP isn't..."good" I guess? By "good" RP I mean "RP that a wider fandom community beyond RP would view as a faithful, genuine, and/or honest portrayal of a character or situation."

That doesn't mean "good" RP excludes humor and crack, either, because you can totally get good material out of that, too. But there's some degree of self-awareness and understanding that wider fandom communities would expect if someone was claiming their interpretation to be "good." If you are passionate about a character and have honest intentions in your portrayals, people will be more accepting when you RP humor or crack. But if you have only surface understanding, a larger audience will probably not be happy if you present yourself as a "good" RPer.