Ending not-so-nice behaviour that permeates discourse surrounding issues like politics, religion, and even fandom stuff.
Another Issue I Have With Both “SJWs” *AND* “Anti-SJWs”
Both sides essentially make it a requirement that you condone being mean to other people, so long as it’s their side that you condone being mean to other people.
Otherwise, if you insist that it’s morally wrong across the board to be mean to other people… then “SJWs” will accuse you of being an “anti-SJW” - and, likewise, “anti-SJWs” will accuse you of being an “SJW”.



Not accurate. It's context. Anti-SJWs are literally mean to others. They're generally reactionaries. Complaining about bigotry isn't being mean. We don't have to pretend your opinion is valid.
TW: attempted suicide mention
Defending yourself and/or others from bigotry or whatnot is not being mean. What is being mean, though, is thinking it's okay to take rude jabs at privileged groups. What I object to are "white girl" jokes, calling white people names like "mayo" or "cracker", and accusing people of "tone-policing" if they dare object to your verbally abusing them in the name of "social justice".
I believe it was wrong when GamerGaters harassed Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesan, and Brianna Wu - and, likewise, I also believe that it was wrong of SJ militant to harass zamii070 to the point of attempted suicide in the name of "social justice". That's what my issue here is.
The alt-right sends death & rape threats against one's entire family. Do "SJWs" do things like this?
If not, can we critique social justice advocates (for their real problems, like the one you mention) in a way which doesn't equalize the two?
Can we also bring in the fact that a lot of these advocates have been harassed online so monstrously that it's hard for them to speak pleasantly like Noam Chomsky? (Then a possible solution would be to do the work to support them so they're less likely to lash out.)
Not to mention the role of the audience, which quite often act as enablers. There's a triangle between bully-victim-audience.
Adding onto what @blues_sevenfold said, a major issue regarding social justice radicals (SJW is an empty term for me these days), and what sets them apart from just normal passionate SJ people, is that they'll also attack people in their own or other marginalized demographics for failing to conform to their standards.
I've seen this happen a lot in the multiplicity community. If you don't match a completely arbitrary set of criteria for what constitutes a "real" multiple, you get called a faker and told you're dangerous to "actual" multiples. A similar case is in the LGBT community, where radicals there tell ace/aro and NB people that they don't exist and don't belong.
Even if you do match their standards of "realness," you'll still get torn apart if you don't live up to impossibly high standards, the moment you make a mistake no matter how honest it was*. An elderly trans woman was sent hate mail and accused of being transphobic just because she used the word "transsexual" instead of "transgender." I wish I was making that up.
It creates an incredibly toxic and fearful environment, where people become too afraid to talk about anything or become stubbornly defiant to the point that they shut everything out. Fear is not healthy for learning. I'm a survivor of extensive childhood abuse, much of it involving perfectionism and being punished severely for honest mistakes, and I see a lot of uncomfortable parallels between that and the radical parts of SJ. Speaking frankly: no matter what you justify it with, abuse is abuse. My abusers also told me that what they did to me was for my own good.
The world that the SJ radicals seem to want to create is not one that I want to live in.
* I do believe that mistakes, regardless of intent, should be pointed out; however, there's a difference between pointing out a mistake and drowning someone in hate over it.
That's exactly it! Thank you! <3
Oh, I should also mention one other thing - regarding the "anti-SJW" side. They aren't exactly being helpful when, at one moment, they'll make legitimate criticisms about the abusive behaviour of SJ militants - and then they turn around and belittle non-abusive SJ bloggers simply for daring to disagree with them. It places people like you and me in a very sticky situation, where we fear expressing agreement with "anti-SJWs" with regard to the former - lest people think we also agree with them on the latter.
Indeed, "anti-SJWs" are a very much case-in-point instance of how "an enemy of an enemy is not always a friend".
SJW does not really mean anything these days. It is a term that has been repurposed by reactionaries to insult people who call out bigotry. Please stop feeding into the SJW nonsense.
Hypocrisy runs deep.
These sorts of turnouts demonstrate the chilling effect that these arguments have on any meaningful discourse. As long as someone is getting their pound of flesh, it'll persist.
There is always failing to respond. Be who you are, be the best you can be, and if you try to apologize and it isn't accepted, move on.
Yes, and that's not just restricted to the SJW world. Society in general is finding it much easier to move from disagreeing with, to hating, to being mean to.