"Social Justice" is an interesting couplet of words. A term originally without a dictionary definition, it exists far more by what it implies rather than what any one person or group categorizes it as.
Of the definitions available by Merriam Webster, the most appropriate would seem to be
>"Social:" of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society.
"Justice" has similarly fitting options:
>"Justice:
>a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.
>c (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal.
A common theme of the second definition is that it is related to the management and application of what is just.
>Just:
>c : conforming to a standard of correctness.
>a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good.
So in aggregate we have Social Justice definable as:
>Conformity to the principle or ideal of what is morally upright or good, as applied to the interaction of individuals and human society.
Sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? "When people interact, they should do so in moral and good ways, or with an eye to create moral and good outcomes."
The fly in the ointment is an implicit but unanswered question. That question is, briefly: Who is deciding what is morally upright and good in this context?
Leaving that for a moment, I'd like to address the concept of "justice" in the more common and less dictionary sense. Generally speaking, "justice" is understood to mean "equality of outcome." If a person is negligent and injures you, they have to pay your medical bills until your outcome - your physical condition, is back to where it was. When this is accomplished, "justice" is said to have been served. When a man commits robbery, he will have to forfeit a portion of his life and his assets, though prison and reimbursements, until "justice" is served. When a person commits murder, he can be sentenced to the death penalty. His life lost for the life he took. "Justice" is served.
In the way "justice" is normally used, it is an indirect reference to a sort of natural balance that exists between people, and which other people are not allowed to wantonly disturb. When a person unlawfully disturbs the balance in their favor, society has a right to move the balance back (at the interloper's expense), typically through collective or representative action, as by a government.
If we use this "common sense" definition and look at the two words again, a much more clear definition brings itself together:
>Social Justice:
>Commitment to the ideal of enforcing equal outcomes between individuals, groups, and human society, particularly when it is understood that doing so makes a person morally upright and good.
Now that does seem to ring a bell, doesn't it?
The official definition, by the way, is this:
>justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
Reading into it a bit and expanding the definitions we get:
>The administration of people who are acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good, especially by the assignment of merited rewards or punishments , in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
If I may make a tiny leap, it then stands to reason that an average person would not immediately hold that unequal distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges are moral or good. Which ties nicely into the "equality of outcomes" part in my off-the-cuff definition above. For all practical purposes the two are fundamentally interchangeable since, after all, you can merit those who have less "wealth, opportunity, or privilege" while punishing those who have more until the "balance" I spoke of between members of society is level.
"Punching up", "punching down", "the nail that sticks up gets the hammer", "check your privilege" - these are all memes that SJWs use that very clearly reference this definition, once it is properly understood.
[Expand Post] Note carefully, however, that much likely a badly-written law in the legal books, this definition doesn't have any exceptions included in it for varying circumstances. It's a blanket statement. Implicitly, what it says is:
>Commitment to the ideal of enforcing equality of outcomes in the interactions of individuals, groups, and society is morally upright and good, and should be merited.
And the implicit inverse as well:
>Non-commitment to the ideal is not morally upright and good, and can be punished.
And where would we be without the third part of that wonderful trifecta of words. The WARRIOR part.
Warrior:
>a person who fights in battles and is known for having courage and skill
And there we have it. The proper definition of the SJW:
>A person who fights in battles that enforce equality of outcomes in the interactions of individuals, groups, and society, and is known for having courage and skill.
They're the ones who hand out the "merit" and "punishment" mentioned in the passages above, and their doing so means that they themselves are considered morally upright and good by their peers.
Note again, the lack of exceptions.
There are no "but"s or "unless"s in any part of this.
It does not say that an SJW is not still "morally upright" if they are a pedophile.
It does not say that an SJW is not still "good" if they are an abuser.
It does not say that an SJW is undeserving of "merit" if they are a liar.
And it does not say that a non -SJW is undeserving of "punishment" for anything . Only that "punishment" is used to administer social justice.
The entire ideology down to the definitions that make up the name that friend or acquaintance will most likely be an SJW themselves.
Furthermore, it stands to reason that a person who is "under attack" can be viewed by default as being in an un-just situation. When Alice pins Bob to the floor and beats his head into the concrete, no reasonable person would argue that Bob has the advantage in the situation. And while an ordinary person would pause to consider what instigated Alice into beating Bob into the concrete - (perhaps he started the fight? Presume that he did in this case, by groping Alice hard while reeking of whiskey) - and take a more neutral position concerned with the safety of both parties, things change if Bob is an SJW. Because Bob is an SJW, to his fellow SJWs looking on he is morally upright, good, meritorious, and having courage and skill by definition.
Remember, there are no "but"s in the definition of an SJW.
>Even though he is a drunkard, he is still morally upright.
>Even though he groped the woman, he is still good.
>Even though he started the fight, he is still meritorious.
>Even though Alice was his victim, she is still "privileged" over Bob, in the "head getting beaten in" department.
>And this can be brought to "justice" by "punishing" Alice until her outcome is equal to Bob's.
>And Alice deserves it for laying her hands on a "morally upright, good, and meritorious" person like Bob. Only a bad person would hurt someone like Bob.