To do a quick recap for people who are not in the know: A "Social Justice Warrior" or sjw for short is a name that some users of the internet give to another person on the internet who they think are complaining about issues that hold no real weight. The reason the more ill-intented sjws do this is just to hopefully raise their reputation in a community for "fighting for morale values" or is just trolling.

For example, a person who may be branded a sjw may be a person who goes onto a forum about a movie and complains about misogyny undertones he believed was displayed in the movie. Most likely the other users of the forum would brand him as a sjw and run him away.

Now that we have the recap and definitions out of the way I want to get into my real thoughts on the matter.

It is true that sjws may very well be a problem. There are certainly people who overreact to certain things when those things may very well be minor issues.

But my main concern lies not with the sjws but instead the people who throw out the brand on people they "believe" are sjws. Are they really sjws who are just trying to seek attention? Or are they simply people who are really genuinely concerned about an issue?

Very often I get a sinking feeling in my gut that sometimes people who brand other people as sjws are only doing it because they dislike what they believe to not be offensive being called out on. I mentioned earlier that ill-intented sjws can try to twist an issue to make it seem bigger than it is. I think that this can also work the other way around where the other side is dismissing a person's genuine claims by brushing them off as sjws.

An example: Say there are three people A, B, and C. A makes a joke about cancer. B has lost family to cancer and is offended by this joke and tells A this. A thinks that his joke was just a joke and that there was nothing wrong with it at all. C comes in and tries to explain to A in a reasonable fashion why cancer jokes can be offensive for certain people. A still firmly believes that he was not wrong in making the joke and calls C a "social justice warrior".

It's examples like the above that mainly worry me how easily someone can brush aside moral criticism just by dismissing the person giving it as a sjw who is just overreacting.

Of course with that said, don't forget that I mentioned it can still go the other way around. Where an issue is not really an issue but someone still tries to make it into one for the sake of it.

That's where things begin getting a bit tricky though. HOW do you determine what is a legitimate issue worth getting worried about or just something that's getting overreacted about?

The way I see this there are two categories that issues usually fall into, and I'll talk a bit about both of them: Real-life Issues, and Personal Issues.

(The two issues may sometimes also co-exist in some cases)

Real-Life Issues: This refers to issues which are happening in the real world life and does not have any strong connection to the people taking place in the discussion. Mostly in this case the person being branded as a sjw will be a person who is trying to voice his thoughts on something from a neutral standpoint but is considered by others to be overreacting.

In these sort of issues I would say the best thing to do would definitely be for both parties to take a step back and discuss things like civilized people. The two parties obviously have differing beliefs on the issue and through discussion it can be made much more clearer is something is really a problem to be worried about or is just a very minor one not caring about.

Personal Issues: This refers to a happening which personally offends a person. Mostly in these cases the offended person will in some way try to express that their feelings have been hurt. The ensuing reaction will be much like the cancer example I posted above.

The appropriate response to this will be MUCH less logical than the "real-life issues" because these sort of cases concern a person's personal feelings, which are not at all logical. In these sort of cases I would say what a person should do is to not push the issue of who is right or wrong in a issue mattering or not. I don't think it matters in this case because regardless of what is right or wrong the truth stands that it offends someone. The best I think that can be done here as a decent person is to not push the issue an apologize for being insensitive.

This ties into another belief I hold that I formed a little while back: Being offended is not a choice. It is much like any other reaction in our bodies which is a reaction to stimuli. You could know 100% sure that the other person is correct but that would not change the fact that you have felt offended by a matter.

This is why that while I think saying that it's because you're "offended" does not hold up AT ALL in a logical discussion/debate, it is a good enough reason for people to show some courtesy and be considerate of your feelings as long as you're being honest and reasonable about it.

So essentially to sum up the whole thing I feel that while there are indeed people who do wrong on both sides of the "Social Justice Warrior" branding issue it is much more healthy for communities as a whole to treat the whole thing in a much more healthy light and not just throw around the tag lightly without thorough thought put into it.