The premise is flawed. "Social Justice Warrior" as a term came from Tumblr. People forget that. The term was used specifically towards people who came in from LiveJournal who were looking to use Social Justice as a means to throw their weight around on a very new and impressionable community made mostly of young, female geeks and aiming to bully, harass and intimidate them into submission, which was so obviously against everything that Social Justice, as a concept, stood for. SJWs treated the cause the way Evangelical Christians treated their cause, and since Evangelicals see themselves as warriors for Christ, the term was applied to these bloggers, as they were "warriors" for Social Justice who didn't give a shit about who they hurt and cared only for appearing to be holier (or more progressive) than their peers.
The spin being applied to make these holy warriors for Social Justice completely glosses over the fact that the main criticism the term was originally for was their tactics and how they treated other people. The entire point was that the SJWs were so awful that they actively undermined their cause and it didn't fucking matter what they were fighting for. Instead SocJus has decided the response to the critique "the ends don't justify the means" is just "actually, yes they do, shut up."
If you only care about marginalized people so long as they agree with your agenda and fall 100% in line, you might be an SJW.
Suck my dick.
