I can't find a good definition from credible sources but WikiPedia and the cited references (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior) refer to it as a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, not
> someone who is oversensitive, unable to accept other people have different viewpoints, and retreats to their safe space whenever someone disagrees with their world view
But the article does mention:
> they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments
and
> unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing
which does seen to have plenty overlap with the general definition and notion of someone who would exhibit toxic behaviour.
Ironically, it seems to be a term (SJW as well as 'toxic') that was invented (SJW) or re-applied (toxic) just to have one group of people label another group of people. Which is double-ironic because neither the labeling nor the behaviour validates ones own point or invalidates the other's point, yet doesn't further any conversation or discussion. It's practically just inflammatory filler.
(by the way, no, it didn't sound mean and I do like to review the popular labels and circular discussions from time to time -- much healthier for me than to be in the middle of it all the time)
> someone who is oversensitive, unable to accept other people have different viewpoints, and retreats to their safe space whenever someone disagrees with their world view
But the article does mention:
> they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments
and
> unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing
which does seen to have plenty overlap with the general definition and notion of someone who would exhibit toxic behaviour.
Ironically, it seems to be a term (SJW as well as 'toxic') that was invented (SJW) or re-applied (toxic) just to have one group of people label another group of people. Which is double-ironic because neither the labeling nor the behaviour validates ones own point or invalidates the other's point, yet doesn't further any conversation or discussion. It's practically just inflammatory filler.
(by the way, no, it didn't sound mean and I do like to review the popular labels and circular discussions from time to time -- much healthier for me than to be in the middle of it all the time)