The first is one who takes social justice to a ludicrous extreme and protests out of convenience (e.g. micro-aggressions on Twitter). The latter is one who is leading an actual fight for social justice (e.g. a lawyer in the UN fighting for women's rights in the Muslim world).
It would be an insult to describe both of these people with the same term, regardless of your political opinions on the term "SJW". In fact, I find that SJWs are usually quite opposed to social justice activists.
The first poster talked about the origin of the word on the far right. The reply then exaggerated that claim into the strawman that everyone who disagrees is far right.
Independent of your political views, you should find this kind of hyperbolic and fallacious argument distasteful in public discourse.
Further note that whether the term “SJW” originated with the far right — it didn’t — is irrelevant to its usefulness or accuracy (genetic fallacy).
The hyperbolic and fallacious arguments are to be found in the first poster’s comments.
To put it another way, regardless of whether you agree with their logic, they've provided you with it: 'SJW' came from the right wing and describes progressives, therefore it is derogatory. If they have the facts wrong, demonstrate that and perhaps they will change their point of view.
The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one
As for your overall point, for an argument to be sound, its propositions have to be true and the logic has to valid. Even if the poster was right about the origin of the term, they failed to support their conclusion; namely that we should stop using the term SJW. Their conclusion wouldn’t follow from their premises even if they were true because the argument is fallacious (genetic fallacy, as I said).
As it happens, they were both factually and logically incorrect, and they papered over the flaws in their reasoning with manipulative rhetoric. To my mind, that’s exactly the sort of discourse that should be called out as harmful to reasonable conversation.
SJW originated as a self-appellation.
In this case, the actual story is about SJWs and their actions, and how their unsoundness has caused injustice.
YMMV, but personally I couldn’t imagine a better term to use in the top level comment.
Obviously none of that will apply to everyone, but hey. Some people juggle geese.
I thought the accepted name for this group of people was SJW. Is this not the case? What do you call this?
On the contrary, there's something very unethical about dealing actual damage to other people's lives based on unverified facts acting purely out of emotion. I believe this is something our society has to outgrow unless we all want the social tensions and aggression to keep on increasing.
Under your point of view. Not everybody must share your views on politics.
I've been nominally protected by these social progressives all my life... yet honestly the most brutal and abusive things ever said to me escaped the lips of a certain subset of woke progressives who are so convinced of peoples vulnerability they can't help but see them as weak. Theres people who develop self-serving savior complexes that spout out progressive buzzwords while not helping anybody but theirselves.
In my personal experience I've had alt-right people who browse /pol/ offer me a drink and apolgize for saying bigoted shit. Have yet to experience an SJW do the same for patronizing me. Can't normalize criticism of progressives though because as the above poster explains, I'm only slowing down social progress that benefits me.