Here are some qualities I've noticed about SJWs:
1. They're heavily sheltered from reality, i.e. naive on their perceptions and judgements, leading to quixotic behaviours and overreaction to common and insignificant phenomena (e.g. "micro-aggressions")
2. They exclusively (AFAICT) identify with authoritarian leftism and typically have little tolerance for anything but authoritarian leftism; "if the highest authority isn't doing something about it, then nothing's being done about it"
3. They do not self-assess their own belief systems, they only become self-aware when they are exposed to ulterior thoughts and PoVs; this allows them to go for long periods holding self-destructive or hypocritical beliefs, e.g. anti-white whites who identify as anti-racists; oddly, they are acutely aware of what they are superficially, and will talk in great lengths about, for example, their unique sexual orientation; essentially narcissism, self-centred
4. They seek "safe spaces" where they become sheltered from those ulterior thoughts and PoVs which make them uncomfortable, amplifying the deterioration of the individual's connection with reality
5. They discriminate on everything they tell others not to discriminate on, which rings loud the bell named "psychological projection"; they are not trying to solve problems, they are trying to put off their problems onto others, the "equal sharing of misery" as Churchill said about something closely related; "He for She" comes to mind
6. Poor concept of, aversion to, and/or disrespect for property and the rules associated with it, allowing them to waive crime depending on circumstance (such as those circumstances which benefit them and their causes, which is actually a rampant issue with all authoritarian lefties)
I once shared a small group with a SJW, she was still in her teens, just about to graduate HS. She had no sense of danger whatsoever. She believed guns should be completely banned outright and ownership of weapons is futile, seeing them as unnecessary in the modern world, and all form of defence should be handled by the state. When I asked her what she would do if a burglar broke into her home, she said she would call the cops, and when I asked her what she'd do while waiting for the cops, she said she'd feed the burglar, assuming hunger to be among the only reasons someone would break into her home. She doesn't realize that burglars are actually out to steal from her, not looking for food as would be the case with a dog. When I asked her what she would do if the state wound up turning on her after all the weapons were gone, she thought I was crazy, and felt such an outcome would never happen. She believed capitalism is utterly evil, referring to the system we have now (which is actually interventionist, something her school failed to mention no doubt) as being proof of it. She was also very uncritical towards written language, allowing her prose to be riddled with typos and misspellings, and encouraged others to be as lax. She believed that people should be taken care of regardless of who they are and what they've done, and believed the taxpayer should foot the bill for it; when questioned about the practicality of this, she accused me of not caring about people's right to food and shelter, arguing that because these needs are present that they should be satisfied, "how can you let someone go hungry"; in other words nobody can ever have their livelihood threatened, according to her ideal. The last quality I recall, she believed nationalism was a "disease"; I believe she was referring to the Nazi sort of nationalism, however, which is very actively taught in public schools (at least when I went roughly 7 years ago), so I can't completely blame her for being scared shitless of it.
Granted, when I first came to this forum a few years ago, I shared a lot of these qualities (well, I was never as bad as a SJW but I was around the area) and didn't understand why such qualities were negative, so total turn-around in political orientation is absolutely possible. What worked for me is constant exposure with other viewpoints, which inevitably showed me how I was wrong in my thinking and forced me to change. I remember when I hit the breaking point: TheButterZone had grilled me on gun bans and I had to concede that gun bans were ineffective in producing the desired goal of reducing criminal violence (since criminals subvert the law to get weapons in case of a ban); after that it was all downhill, as I also had to concede that law was an ineffective way of curbing criminal behaviour all together which caused my entire belief system to avalanche (i.e. the idea that the highest authority was fixing it, or even could, was destroyed.) In other words, "attacking" SJWs (i.e. disagreeing with them) is what stops them from being SJWs, and to protect who they are (i.e. windmill tilters), they have to guard themselves from these "attackers" i.e. eliminate the chance of exposure to reality, namely by removing the offending individual from the community all together. We've seen it on Reddit recently, where censorship is very high as well as corruption, and they ban anyone who contributes to the communal discomfort (or who gets in the way of corrupt schemes)--this caused people to leave in droves once the truth started getting around about how bad it was, and caused anyone still around to severely dislike the site and not want to go to it, which is going to kill it over time like a toxin. We've also seen this in places like China, Cambodia, USSR, Nazi Germany, where they resorted to jailing, silencing, even killing any opposition to the leading party, in each case focused around community, culture, and anti-business, which inevitably ate those organizations from the inside out (why China's as far from their communist ideal as ever, but won't stop being socialist since all that power would be lost from the organizers the moment that goal dies and nothing replaces it.)
What contributes to the creation of a safe space? Primarily, freedom of speech needs to be abolished; there can be no safe space if people are free to stray from the accepted list of that which can be talked about. Individuals who violate another's right to be comfortable must be removed from the community and treated as any rule-breaker would, which also removes them from the conversation (no voice.) In order to remove individuals from the community, you need ownership over the community, the power to decide who is welcome in the community and who is not; therefore, those who seek safe spaces must also be amongst company; to turn the given community into a safe space, you need a high level of safe spacers along with a high level of people who don't naturally recognize obstruction of information transfer, both of which make up some clear majority, particularly a majority which outspends the minority, thus giving greater incentive to community organizers to cater to the safe spacers; since the safe spacers are incompatible with non-safe spacers, one group has to go, and once one group is dominant, the other is naturally locked out--they aren't completely barred from using the site, but it becomes practically useless to their purposes, which pushes them away from it, again Reddit is a great example. When it comes to communities which are greatly opposed to safe spacers (but which the safe spacer wants to be a part of), the only route for a safe spacer to take is "middle of the road", where the safe spacers encourage the existing community to compromise on their current situation by a small increment now and small increment later, to allow the safe spacers more and more control over how they can be interacted with; this encourages heavy moderation of how the community members can and cannot interact with one another, which inevitably increases that community's rule-breaking behaviour as more and more rules are piled on as to what is and is not acceptable (thus, one by one, kicking the previous community out.) This goes on until the safe spacers can reach a communal majority, which pushes the now incompatible minority out almost entirely. With that minority gone, there can be no more meaningful conversation, as the truth is real and reality is no bueno for the safe spacer. Naturally, the community can simply reject the safe spacer rather than compromise, which forces the safe spacer to seek elsewhere for their desire; I've seen this happen many times in our Meta subforum, where users complain about there being a lack of control and other users yelling at them for being such wimps
Not seeing a whole lot of this on the national level, at least not in the west, in fact it's probably closer to the safe space tipping point than it ever has been (heck, it's tipping as we speak.)
When it comes to sites like this one, the dominant force is in transfer of information rather than sharing of community, and to properly transfer information dictates freedom of speech, so safe spacers will always be locked out (assuming the net remains free, of course; odds are, safe spacers would sooner shut this site down than try to be a part of it.) I feel that it is normal to accept both community quality and freedom of action and thought as important to a thriving organization, and I believe that people naturally notice and favour one over the other at varying degrees of magnitude, which creates these imbalances in priorities and organizational make up; this necessitates some mix of the two types of people to maintain a healthy organization, so as not to dip too far into either realm. A safe space is not a healthy organization, it is an organization comprised of dysfunction, which purposefully seeks to eliminate the transfer of information on any meaningful level so as to stop that which causes them discomfort, the discomfort they need to feel to make anything better (thus, instead of a cooperation between the two types, the elimination of one entirely, essentially any form of extremism or "far" ideologies on the left/right spectrum); this dictates total control over the community's behaviour, a situation which breeds corruption as the community organizers, such as the politicians, the website owners, and so forth, see a way to profit from this control: at this point, the community gets into a dangerous predicament where the organizers attempt to control the community for the organizer's gain, rather than the community's gain, and that profitability rises the more "safe" (i.e. sheltered) their safe space is, which worsens the conditions of those individuals participating in the corrupted community as it further separates them from what's real, preventing them from seeing the nature of their relationship with the organizer. It is as true for any nation as it is for any social site as it is for any family home and should be treated for what it is: social cancer.
