What is it about Tumblr that makes it so appealing to radical subcultures? And what is it that makes those subcultures thrive so well in that community?
* Users can self-organize into hashtags, which are easier to navigate and more cohesive than on Twitter.
* Custom blog designs make it feel more personal / intimate, à la LiveJournal or MySpace.
* Reblogs let content spread quickly. Unlike Twitter, there's more flexibility with what and how long this content is. And unlike retweets, reblogging users can add their own opinions / perspectives to what they share.
* Notes, likes, reblogs, followers... provide a metric for the validation of one's opinions.
* The dashboard and blocking system, plus tools like Missing E, let you narrow down the content you want to see and filter out what you don't.
* Emphasis on images / highly visual content which can quickly disseminate social messages and encourages the liking / sharing reaction -- similar to how image macros or videos can easily go "viral".
* No real name policy, and you can easily change your name / switch your blog URL if need be.
* Strong traction in the various fandom communities, which are subcultures in and of themselves and tend to be more receptive to "radical" ideas, as you put it.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Tumblr user; just interested in how internet communities work.
Tumblr is mathematically biased to prevent feedback from the outside. People who use it rarely change their opinions because of this.
I employ each tactic on HN and reddit respectively.
I think it's the bubble-ish environment that gets created not only by your followership but also by the fact that tumblr blogs rarely get feedback from outside.
Once you've build a sufficient followership around you, every thought you express in that bubble gets some how discussed, accepted and developed.
That's why for once tumblr blogs react so harsh to bubble-out-side topics (/r/shittumblrsays) and secondly why I believe it is such a good place for discussion of "radical subcultures".
Combined with the bandwagon effect of downvotes in many (not all) subreddits, this has the same filter-bubble effect, just by virtue of pushing differently-minded people out (either to seek other subreddits, or off the site altogether).
Just look at /r/politics and you'll see this in full force - with a few exceptions, almost any post expressing a somewhat conservative perspective is downvoted massively.
This is one of the reason Reddit implemented [score hidden], which seems to have helped somewhat, but not entirely.
> Radicals tend not to like people disagreeing with them.
This isn't true only "radicals" - it's true everywhere. And I don't think it's the userbase that's different; it's the structure around it that makes the difference. In other words, the same people will group themselves differently on Tumblr and Reddit, even if they use both sites.
Suicide is everywhere. Trans people are everywhere. Minorities are everywhere. Tumblr just isn't sweeping it under the rug as much as some other sites.
[citation needed]
EDIT:
Reason I ask is that, when fighting for the cause of minority groups, it doesn't help to make claims that are easily shown to be false--it hurts your credibility, and by association, theirs.
The "x are everywhere" is what, for example, brought us the Iraq War and the TSA and all the rest...just good marketing whipping people up into a frenzy.
EDIT2:
Fine, for the downvoters, here's some citations (because apparently that's too much to ask):
Various studies show a rate of between 0.1-0.5% of people identifying as trans ( http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-siz... ).
A 2011 study by the UCLA Williams Institute found there to be around 700,000 trans people ( http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-d... ).
Anyways, I don't think any reasonable person would say that 5 people in 1000 would be enough to support the claim the GP put forth.
Anyway, if 5 in 1000 (as your own link states, these numbers are inherently difficult to quantify — but i'll go along with it) is not enough to qualify as everywhere, what is? What's your exact limit on everywhere? 1 in 500? 1 in 100? 1 in 10?
The suicide rate in the US is ~12 in 100'000, but you didn't seem to think mentioning it hurt OP's credibility (or, by association, the credibility of people who've committed suicide).
Furthermore, I reject the idea that identifying a subculture means that you are dismissing that subculture.
The fact that subcultures can be voluntary, whimsical, or ephemeral doesn't mean they have to be, and I certainly don't assume any lack of seriousness or significance to the notion that someone is a member of this or that subculture.
That is not at all what 'radical' means in the context of 'radical sub-culture'. The definition you're looking for is one of:
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
I guess you could argue that trans people fall under definition # 2 from the perspective of many (most?) people, but i also think that 'radical sub-culture' generally implies some kind of conscious action — i don't think that simply existing as a member of a minority makes you inherently 'radical'.
If you're not sure what someone means, consider asking them rather than complaining about it. Transitioning to a different gender from one's birth default is (for the time being) a radical change involving extensive medical evaluation, a lifetime drug regimen and ultimately major surgery, to say nothing of the social difficulties.
Neither have positive connotations, but "fundamentalist" is worse. Fundamentalism specifically invokes ideas of religious fundamentalism, particularly "religious right" style protestant beliefs.
"Radical" on the other hand is used in a more diverse set of cases. It invokes thoughts of any number of political or religious beliefs that are either outside the mainstream or do not conform with progressive western values as they are traditionally stated.
I don't think either is dismissive. Descriptive, with negative connotations, but being critical is not the same as being dismissive.
In other words you fit perfectly here :)
Even so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone can escape school, escaping a country, state or just city for a more accepting environment is a lot more difficult.