Indeed, there's a difference between "social justice" and "social justice war" People who support the former rarely support the latter.

That is why people who practice such methosds are called Social Justice Warriors in stead of social justice supporters. Thet thing is that SJWs twisted social justice until it became very different from real justice.
I can't find anything about them on DeepFreeze. Are they on our side, against us, or neutral? And if neutral or on our side, are they trust worthy?

It still hasn't got anything to do with social justice, so I'd remove those letters as well.
Social justice is rather about love and certainly not about hatred. Hatred is never just.
It's a sexist and racist cult with its leadership in the young white female upper class that is using terms from actual social justice activism to bait new recruits and manipulate them into going to war against the chosen enemies without questioning the belief or agenda, just like any other sect is doing as well. There isn't any real difference.
Reminds me of the time, when Scientology had the nerve to advertise with buddhistic terms in the area where my parents live.

And just like some chauvinist idiots in the past have ruined the reputation of men's rights activism (which is supposed to be about social justice too after all), the same is happening right now with feminism, which is really sad.
Maybe it has to be this way so that we may reach humanism one day.

All political and social movement are capable of being co-opted. The hippy counter culture, Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, the UKIP, Code Pink, the Seirra Club, PETA, CAIR, they've all been radicalized at one time or another. Taking groups to the furthest extent of their ambitions and radicalizing their membership is the quickest way to marginalize the group's exposure and influence of larger portions of society. It's an old trick and still used frequently because it's very effective.

Yes, but this isn't even a radicalized social justice movement.
For a radicalized movement, the end justifies the means, but the end is still the same, in this case it would theoretically be exterminating sexism and racism for example by rather bashing than simply sueing a boss for not hiring someone simply because he/she is of whatever sex/color this boss doesn't want for the job and by raising awareness about the fact, that such things still have an unnecessary big influence in some places on this planet.
This isn't what is happening at all.
What we have is a movement that has an agenda that is just another form of sexism, racism, etc... (straight white men are bad, mkay?) and which stands in contrast to the ones it claims to integrate.

I hear what you're saying, It's like gun control where they shoot anyone that wants a gun (dumb idea off the top of my head) but I don't know a good stand-in word or phrase for people that "think and\or feel" they are working towards a SJ cause but rather hurting their cause.

I think we're talking semantics. The SJW movement is easily radicalized because it's a leader based movement. Sarkeesian and Wu and those types are the mouth pieces at the top shouting orders to all of their underlings... revelation of the method (to the lay persons and uninformed). I'm sure there's plenty of moderate and sensible feminists out there who are simply fighting to keep women relevant in the marketplace, employed, fighting against religious persecution in the middle east, etc. Plenty of those middle-road types don't care one bit about male tears and bra burning nonsense. And where's their voice? Sure, there's feminists like Christine Sommers or whatever her name is, but she's easily lumped in with the evil 'gators because she's not towing the company line... and that line is a radicalized one.

If a poll was conducted by Gallop or somebody asking if feminism should either be about equality or destroying the male sex, I think that vote would be split. The fact that the equality voters are marginalized and not given a voice from the screaming fanatics shows that it is indeed a radicalized movement. That's part of the problem with democracy in general. We tend to end up painting with too large a brush in order to fulfill the goals of PROGRESS. So for that extreme element that shouts down everyone else, their goals are the ends. And if you don't like it, well we have a government minister of health on hand to chat with you in private about your 'ethical concerns.'

In the end, Big Sister is no better than Big Brother. Only difference is that instead of a jackboot stepping on the face of humanity forever, it's a high heeled shoe.

Mind, that I often refuse to use the common use of words if the original meaning of those has been twisted to a breaking point. I do this in order to not support politically motivated redefinitions, even if they already happened large-scale. It simply has to do with the categorical imperative being my personal way of life - if noone would be using Newspeak, the existence of Newspeak wouldn't matter, so I don't use it.

Would you agree, that a social justice movement in its true form should rather be leaderless, since it stands for a simple and clear idea anyway that doesn't really need someone to rally people and explain who "the enemy" is supposed to be since the enemy is naturally an idea of injustice that is independant of past, current or future examples anyway?

I get many of your points and agree on them. That is why I make a disticntion between Social Justice Warriors (The twisted ones so to speak) and social justice advocates (The ones that follow an actual principle of justice in society).

I think this about sums it up. Personally throughout my life, I've supported many "social justice" causes. Crazy prison sentences for possession of drugs. The fact blacks make up the vast majority of prison inmates despite being a minority and examples of the sentences for "crack" cocaine vs. powdered and how whites get probation despite possessing more. Many gay rights issues, such as right to marriage or inheritance, domestic partnership rights especially when it comes to hospitals. There are so many issues where there is true demonstrable "issues"...

And then you have these asshats who think Peach being a Damsel in DIstress is somehow sexist and offensive to women or lack of minority representation in a game themed on 13th century Poland. There are so many "real" issues, the fact some of these SJW losers want to push the point on such crap is farcical...

Yes. A leaderless movement requires longer to fight for its goals, but it's also harder to co-opt, marginalize, or destroy. It's like a Hydra, you cut one head off, 2 more grow back in its place. Plus none of that 'cut the head off the chicken and the body dies', top-down power structure problems that typically plague modern cult-of-personality movements.

Extra bonus for Gamergate is that gamers don't really need to 'win' in the traditional sense. All we have to do is hold the line until the self-professed leaders of the SJW brigade self-destruct via twitter meltdowns and entitled diva syndrome.

The real power of a leaderless movement is that they tend to spread like wildfire. Rather than having to have a few people going around spreading the word, you've got people that already believe that are doing most of the proselytizing.

The main problem with movements like that is that they can lack focus and worse they're easy to demagogue as there is no representative or group that you can point to. So, it's easy to turn GG into the bogeyman as it's not an entity. It's a gestalt of all the various people that are concerned about journalistic integrity in the gaming media.

Hey! but is something you can fight so easily sit down from home, and being a "megaphone" on Twitter... they are changing the world...

They're pro-ethics. So a good site in the making.

Unrelated but #metalgate requests assistance : https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3jrrbv/metalgate_requests_assistance/ so join on some additional email campaigns if interested.