/r/TumblrinAction is a subreddit dedicated to cataloging social justice activism that is perceived as over-the-top or nonsensical by the community. The subreddit has attracted controversy for its occasional negative portrayal of some social justice movements. The moderators of the sub agreed to do the following interview with me.

---

How did you first get involved in /r/TumblrInAction's community?

TheHat2: I was there when it was first spun off of /r/SRSsucks.

Goatsac: I came to TiA by way of /r/INeedFeminismBecause, a small child subreddit of TiA. I've always enjoyed folks acting stupid and ridiculous on-line. It warms the cockles of my heart. I had never heard of Tumblr before, but I was quite familiar with LiveJournal and that crowd.

GammaKing: "Help me, I think I'm turning into a wolf!" and similar posts. TiA was never intended as a sub with a political motive, but was actually more like an /r/roastme for Tumblr. This point was always to have a chuckle and poke fun at some of the stuff they come up with, and that's why I ended up here. More on that below.

How do you feel about this subreddit sometimes being branded as a hate sub?

TheHat2: Just seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me. Subs critical of feminism or social justice seem to get that label on Reddit, for some reason. I think it's just a way to hand-wave whatever we say and do here as, "well they're a bunch of bigots, so fuck 'em." To be fair, I think the hatred is mutual, as you regularly see disdain for subs like /r/blackladies and even /r/offmychest here because of their political affiliations. Just feels like a rivalry more than anything else.

Do I think TiA is a hate sub? No. There's some hateful people here, I don't believe we've encouraged hateful behavior. We have Rule 3, which is meant to deter those sorts of people from the sub. While there are have been some complaints over the limits of what we consider to be acceptable (Rule 3C, specifically), I still believe that our standards for reasonable conversation are higher than those of hateful communities.

Goatsac: Someone who exploded over a rat named Biggie Smalls sees this subreddit as a hate sub, and their loyal followers believe it. I think that is fucking awesome.

GammaKing: The notion is quite simply ridiculous. The people that do this typically define "hate sub" as "I saw an opinion I disliked" rather than something more genuine, and it shows in the way that the subs which do this feel the need to delete and ban anyone that disagrees with such characterisations. Just take a look at our rules - a key one is "don't advocate hatred or harm". Then take a look at the comments here and notice there's not a whole lot of hate to be found. The more you might look into this, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile that label, and more often than not people resort to cherry-picking highly downvoted comments as weak "proof".

Because that's another key feature here that people used to echo-chamber subs don't understand: We don't moderate for opinion. As per our rules, you can express practically any idea you like provided that it's expressed civilly and with respect towards others. The community are pretty good at downvoting the more stupid opinions, and we mods leave them up because it's good to let people debate things out and expose bullshit for what it is. Due to that we occasionally get someone come in and see a right-wing opinion in a comment, freak out over it and declare TiA a fascist sub. Never mind the dozens of liberal-minded comments in the same thread - that conservative guy hasn't been banned and that's problematic. It's a fundamental difference in how we run things, and you win over no minds by removing and banning those who step out of line. There is no dogma here and nowadays it seems a lot of people who parrot smears about TiA actually haven't investigated for themselves. The myth sustains itself. So no, this is not a "hate sub" and those looking to brand it as such are merely engaged in political smear tactics. It entirely revolves around trying to convince - and in some cases even bully (see /r/offmychest) - people into staying away without considering the issue themselves.

On a related note, what do you believe constitutes hate speech?

TheHat2: It's tricky because of how it's been warped to the point where saying "I disagree" can be construed as hate speech, depending on the opinion. Advocating harm against others (including calls for people to kill themselves) is hate speech, in my mind. Speech that intends to disparage others would also be considered hate speech. The context and background of the speakers matter for that one, as, for example, if someone has a history of posting Stormfront links while talking about "the difference between blacks and humans," that's some hate speech. We had this issue in /r/SocialJusticeInAction.

Goatsac: Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.

GammaKing: Inciting violence or harm against others. I don't personally apply identity politics to this - encouraging others to harm eachother is wrong regardless of whether you think a group "deserves" detection. Sadly a great many people seem to define "hate speech" as "speech that conflicts with my views on a subject".

How do you feel about that content that gets submitted here?

TheHat2: I've noticed that critics of TiA like to say that "most of what gets posted is just bad satire," but I don't think it's as widespread as they claim. Some of it is satirical, no doubt, but I think the majority of content is legitimate, especially posts that don't come from Tumblr. There's also the issue of people intentionally posting outrageous opinions in hopes of getting posted to TiA, which is frustrating. For the most part, I think our content features legitimate opinions.

As far as the actual content, I think the common theme of what gets posted here is that it has some kind of ridiculous logic or double standard that can be picked apart. It's ideological, and seems to use "what's true for you is true" as a motto. Additionally, there's usually an emphasis on "who is the most oppressed," for some reason. Like posts saying that first-wave feminists weren't true feminists because a lot of them were racists. Or the recent coining of "homonormativity." It's like there's so much attacking and not enough conversation starting. And if someone wants to learn, they're most often met with "educate yourself, it's not my job." I guess I'd say that most of the content here showcases the toxic side of social justice and identity politics.

Goatsac: Thankfully, dipshits aren't a protected group.

GammaKing: So in relation to the above: TiA originally focused on a lot more otherkin and similar Tumblr content. However, in recent years Tumblr itself became absolutely obsessed with "Social Justice". The sub's specific mission was never to target that ideology in particular, but it's prominence on Tumblr is a large part of the reason it features so heavily today. I'd like to see more of the other types of content, but it's hard to deny that people claiming "women used to reproduce asexually" are rather amusing.

As mods, we do our part to keep out the more serious content. You know, stuff about some Tumblr user assaulting someone. We're pretty clear that for something to have a place here it has to be funny, since there are dozens of other subs dedicated to getting angry at Tumblr and we want TiA to be different. Broadly speaking, since the mod team change last year, we've been succeeding in that.

How do you feel about current social justice movements?

TheHat2: I've seen good and bad. The good ones tend to have more focus on solutions to problems, and the bad ones tend to turn into bigots that justify their bigotry because of their oppression. I do not believe there is positivity to be found in hatred. You can't solve a problem if you shout at it long enough. And it seems like the bad social justice advocates want to do that. They have no desire to engage in conversation unless they're the only ones talking. They actively shut down challenges to their ideas, and create spaces where no one can question their beliefs. The good advocates for social justice are the ones you rarely hear about, because they aren't so outrageous as to garner media attention. There are some that I know personally, that do seek to start conversations and find solutions to problems, and do so assertively, but not disrespectfully. My college's African American Cultural Center held a Black Lives Matter protest a few months ago, and turned it into something of an information session. They distributed flyers, answered questions, and challenged how people stereotyped BLM. That's how you change hearts and minds, by actually trying to change them, not by spreading your anger to them.

Goatsac: I think social justice on-line is the greatest troll. An intolerant hate group that attacks and bullies people, all under the guise of inclusivity? A group of fat, white dudes preaching about diversity? I don't think enough people appreciate how fucking awesome and cool that is. This is a group of people that randomly has to have the talk about not using "has a small dick" as an insult, because of transwomen. You can't make this shit up. It's great. Y'know, when I first got involved in Reddit, I was actually pretty close to joining that side of things. I'm a weirdass leftist pinko that loves watching folks get bullied and belittled, and I love pissing off entitled, privileged, white Millennial filth. And that is actually how I got out of SocJus, as well. It's full of a bunch of entitled, privileged, white Millennials crying about entitled, privileged, white Millennials. I suppose if there was less crying, but yeah, I can't stand crying.

GammaKing: Social justice in general is something worth striving for. That said, radical Tumblr feminism and identity politics makes an absolute mockery of it, with people being too busy tearing into eachother over insignificant issues to make any real progress in society. You don't achieve equality by mindlessly shitting on the group you deem to be "privileged". Sadly in it's current form social justice "warriors" have had their ideology devolve into the very bigotry they set out to stand against - albeit towards different groups of people.

Anything else you'd like to add?

TheHat2: Hatman was right.

Goatsac: College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure. Within those years, I've had to rot in loneliness. It's not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It's an injustice, a crime, because... I don't know what you don't see in me. I'm the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at these obnoxious men instead of me, the supreme gentleman.

GammaKing: TiA gained a bad reputation last year in the wake of GamerGate - a lot of very angry people moved in and made the sub a much more negative place than it should have been. We've resolved that now but it seems there are people keen on trying to damage the sub's reputation regardless. Civil debate is always more productive than moderation-enforced circlejerking. By engaging ideas you dislike you stand a good chance of exposing their flaws, whereas by banning them you merely force people into two camps.

---

Feel free to ask /u/TheHat2, /u/Goatsac, and/u/GammaKing follw up questions here.

Please refrain from low-effort comments, unthoughtful comments that don't really add to the thread. Comments should be either adding to the discussion or follow up questions