The article attempts to provide a description of tweets which are posted in response to activist hashtags. It argues that these tweets together with their hashtags can be analyzed as having the discursive function of “call and response" in activist movements. It examines 2300 tweets which are responses to 15 hashtags and demonstrates that these tweets can be classified into different types of speech acts according to Searle's sub-categorization. The study also argues that tweets responding to such hashtags can be classified into supportive and dismissive responses. Those tweets in totality constitute what can be considered as extended public conversations. They also have a gestalt illocutionary force or they constitute a macro-speech act. The article attempts to provide a description of tweets which are posted in response to activist hashtags. It argues that these tweets together with their hashtags can be analyzed as having the discursive function of “call and response" in activist movements. It examines 2300 tweets which are responses to 15 hashtags and demonstrates that these tweets can be classified into different types of speech acts according to Searle's sub-categorization. The study also argues that tweets responding to such hashtags can be classified into supportive and dismissive responses. Those tweets in totality constitute what can be considered as extended public conversations. They also have a gestalt illocutionary force or they constitute a macro-speech act.