One characteristic of the social justice ideology is that it has been fine-tuned, polished and perfected over the decades to be as virulent and as convincing as possible. Much of this fine-tuning has not necessarily been conscious and intentional, like groups of social justice warriors deliberately brainstorming about what kinds of tactics would be the most effective, but instead it has been a kind of "natural selection" process, where hundreds and hundreds of different small tactics have been tried, and the ones that have been most effective have been retained, and collected into a whole.
It uses and abuses all kinds of psychological phenomena, of the type where people are, for some reason, very prone to believe certain claims even if it goes against their personal experience and evidence.
When you are aware of these tactics, you may learn to recognize them when they are being used. (Again, it might not be used as a deliberate conscious attempt at spreading misinformation for the explicit purpose to divide&conquer a community, but it's the product of decades of fine-tuning by the social justice cult.)
One of the first tactics that are used, is generalizing "problematic" behavior that a very fringe minority of members of the community engage in, and claiming that it's a "rampant problem" that exists everywhere. By far the most popular such claims are those of sexism and prejudice against women (but in some situations may also include other such claims, such as racism or homophobia.)
For instance, it may be that some small minority of the members of the large community sometimes makes sexist jokes or remarks, or is genuinely a rather unpleasant person at times. Maybe for each hundred people in the community, one or two are like that. Most other members of the community may have witnessed such things, and heard them present such offensive, or even just mildly inappropriate remarks.
Thus, one of the first tactics used by social justice warriors is to claim that this kind of mentality and behavior is much more prevalent than it really is. Claims will be made that such attitudes are rampant, and the entire community is "toxic". And, as said, many people will simply just believe those claims, completely disregarding their own personal experience. For some reason the majority of people are prone to believe this.
Another major tactic is to point out the lack of "diversity" in the community, as some kind of problem. (What exactly the "problem" is, or why it's a problem, is seldom explained. It just is, period. There's no need to explain why a lack of "diversity" is a problem. By this point it's just a self-evident fact that needs no explanations, reason, or argumentation. On the contrary, if you dare to question or doubt it, it's you who is the problem, and you will be often shamed and accused of all kinds of things, even if all you did was to ask why the lack of "diversity", whatever that means, is a problem.)
After all, most hobbies cater to only a portion of the general population. Not everybody is interested in all possible hobbies, and thus some people will inevitably be a "minority" in many hobbies. Social justice warriors will pick some such group, and claim that there's a "lack of diversity", and that's of course always a problem. Because reasons.
Moreover, this will quickly turn into accusations of discrimination. The implied claim is, of course, that the under-representation of some given group of people in the community must be because of discrimination. (They never have to point out exactly how the community is discriminating against anybody. Again, it's just a self-evident fact that needs no explanation nor reasoning.)
They will thus induce any entity, organization or corporation running that community to strive for "more diversity". Again, without even having to state a reason why it's necessary. And even though said entity has never discriminated against anybody in any way, shape or form.
Give it enough time, and all these claims and demands will escalate more and more. The social justice warriors, and the people in the community who they have successfully converted into the ideology, will start becoming louder and louder, and attacking more and more ferociously anybody in the community who they deem an appropriate scapegoat. The limits of what's acceptable will become stricter and stricter, and people will be attacked and publicly shamed for the most ridiculous things.
Of course this quickly escalates to demands for those offenders to be banned from the community. Expect the word "unsafe" to be used a lot.
The people who are not converted into the ideology will start slowly getting fed up with all this nonsense, all these attacks, and all the toxicity coming from the social justice warriors, and will start speaking up against it. A rift will form in the community.
But that's exactly how the social justice cult operates: Divide and conquer. And ultimately destroy.
There are certain keywords that, if you start seeing them in your community's forums and other places, should start raising red flags. Many of them I have already mentioned, and include among others "diversity", "toxic", "unsafe" (or "safe", eg. in "safe environment" or "safe space"), "sexism", "misogyny", "discrimination", "prejudice", "hate speech", and "problematic". Also spurious accusations of questionable behavior and prejudiced attitudes, and especially exaggeration of their prevalence.
Especially if the community is being run by some kind of organization or corporation, and this entity starts writing articles about "diversity", and how they want to promote it, it's probably going fast down the rabbit hole, and it might be too late.