Roosh wrote a very important column delving into what Social Justice Warriors are, what they do, and how they go about doing it:
Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.
The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies….
SJW tactics evolved by necessity to keep their ideology alive in a modern climate where science—even 100-year-old science—contradicts the bulk of their ideas.
For example, a basic tenet of SJW thought is that there is no difference between men and women besides their physical bodies, that evolution stopped at the neck for human beings and gave both sexes an identical brain. Human biology can not sustain this notion   , so when a person tries to state that men and women are different to a large audience, the SJW does one of three things:
(1) Attempts to censor the speech through mob action
(2) Calls the person a misogynist who hates women to inoculate the general population from considering the accurate information presented
(3) Destroys the livelihood of the person by contacting his employer so that he is less able to exercise his free speech
You’ll often encounter SJW debate tactics trying to use consensus to persuade you: “How can you think X when so many people think Y?” As you may already know, consensus is a poor judge of facts or morality.
Readers here know the SJWs as “pinkshirts” and “rabbits”, although if one wants to get more specific, the SF/F pinkshirts are a subset of SJWs and SJWs are a subset of rabbits aka r/selected. The important thing for those of us on the political right to keep in mind is that SJW!=leftist. SJW is an extreme subset of leftism, as Roosh points out, an extreme subset, and it is possible to ally with the leftists they are every bit as inclined to attack on a tactical basis from time to time. Just as the Bolsheviks wiped out the Mensheviks and NASDAP put the KPD in concentration camps, the extreme Left engages in internecine combat as readily as inter-ideological conflict.
It’s a long post, but a very good one. Read the whole thing. You will recognize most of the strategies and tactics he describes as what we’ve seen in the SFWA purging, the Eich affair, and in the comments here when the SJW trolls run through their usual routines.
The most important thing to take away from it is to understand the complete impossibility of compromise or even discourse with them. They do not engage in rational debate because they are not rational and they do not engage in honest discourse because they do not believe in objective truth. They can only be a) ignored, or b) destroyed. Since we’re not permitted to hunt them down like the worthless parasites they are yet (give it another 20 years), the current solution is implacable opposition, rhetorical dismissal, and a complete rejection of their wheedling attempts at entryism.
Every apology or attempt to find common ground will be viewed as a display of weakness and attacked. This is why it is important to ignore the well-meaning moderates, who simply do not understand with what they are dealing and will unwisely attempt to give the SJWs the very entry points they are seeking. Don’t argue with the moderates, just let them speak their piece, nod and smile, and completely ignore their self-defeating advice.
They inevitably attempt to sell their irrationality beneath a mask of seeming reason and common sense. Because they are intrinsically parasitical, they need to obtain acquiescence, if not full mental buy-in, from people in the organizations they are invading. They seek submission, eventually, but they will settle for tolerance. The pattern is clear: Step one: tolerance. Step two: compliance. Step Three: submission.
Therefore, the correct answer is always no. “Wouldn’t it only make sense if….” No. “Can’t we just….” No. “Wouldn’t it be fair to….” No. “You have to admit….” No. “If you would just apologize…” No.
“No” strips the mask of sanity from their faces and reveals the angry, shrieking madness underneath. Never forget, they cannot win without your compliance. So do not, under ANY circumstances, comply.