The problem is "what should be considered the right thing". Opinions differ as to what is right or ethical; what is seen as social justice to some may be social injustice to others - and often those leading the charge are intolerant of differing opinions.

This is why the legal justice system is deliberately limited in the things which it addresses, with judgement against a set of fixed criteria. That system also has various safeguards, including the right to equal representation before their peers, compelled discovery of evidence, strict consequences for deceit, etc. If it determines that a crime has been committed, it can enforce judgements which directly address the issue - whereas social justice tends to make a lot of noise to put pressure on others to act.

No system is perfect, of course. But there are great dangers in discarding an existing system. I would be particularly cautious of any call to punish through social justice what would on the face of it be a crime under the legal justice system, as it suggests that the case might not be that convincing if presented in full.

Social Justice Warrior is an internet term, not a real life term. Because people in real life don't openly say things the same way they do online. So there's no need for a Social Justice Warrior in everyone's circle of friends in the real world.

On the internet people relish the fact that they can throw their opinions around and not see criticism that will actually affect them. If you combine this with what I refer to as the 'dialogue bubble', they often say hurtful things in the heat of the moment and even contradict themselves later for some other strong feeling they have. And they don't want to be corrected or have their facts verified. They merely want to be acknowledged and have their comments 'liked'.

The dialogue bubble is where the contents of a particular dialogue window is what drives a person's emotions while they're looking at what's in the window. And if it's designed well, it can be compelling enough to trigger the person to respond or share it with their friends. Especially if many others have already responded to it.

Social Justice Warrior is a derogatory term to shake the finger at anyone who dares to bother correcting people or address their fallacies. And due to the fact that there is no way to effectively police for biased and untrue comments made on the internet, it's now more of a crime to prove someone wrong on their own blog or journal than it is to purposely leave facts out to make an argument seem more valid than it is.

This is why I don't argue with people on the internet. I ignore them and what they say never affects me anyway. Especially if I just skip over whatever they were going on about to begin with.

Not to mention the more often they make comments like that, the more I can quietly see it's probably a good idea not to associate with that person.

Originally, Social Justice Warrior was a term used exclusively for those who crusaded for Social Justice, but would often speak over those they claimed to speak for, harm others for their own gain, or were just generally stupid or malicious about their quest for "justice." But since its use spread, it has now become an easy insult to throw at anybody who expresses any interest in social justice or being mindful of others.

It kind of sucks, because we've gotten to the point where if you accuse somebody of using social justice as a front, or a shield from criticism for their abusive behavior, you're told that you're the enemy, just as bad as the neckbeards who use "SJW" as a catchall term. So abusive behavior by SJ types goes under the radar, and anybody who points it out is regarded with suspicion.

It seems like the only time it's ever actually addressed is if a cis dude uses SJ culture as a way of harassing women.