Dialogue with a moderate
Surely the defining difference between Social & Antisocial Justice is that the former is based purely on shifting alliances whereas the latter has a fixed, external, absolute point of principle.
The strengths of the two movements are therefore respectively:
SJW: Nihilistic, solipsistic, values based on narrowly focussed clusters of identity politics with overlapping shared interests, able to score tactical victories by agile adaptation & forging powerful alliances to overwhelm defences.
Anti-SJW: Idealistic, outward looking, from a broad range of interests, based on shared ideals, able to form genuine grassroots defensive reactionary opposition & coherent offensive strategies when properly oriented.
Correspondingly, each has their own weaknesses.
SJW: Directionless, easily divided. Supremacy in the hierarchy is decided by any given unit's usefulness to any given group at any given time. Usefulness which in turn depends on unsustainable levels of intensity which hinders the ability to develop a cohesive strategy and consistently apply it.
Anti-SJW: Hypocritical, dogmatic, liable to procrastinate & pontificate. The exacting standards of the abstract ideals makes real world leaders difficult to find & easy to attack on principle. Supremacy within the hierarchy may be accorded on the basis of effectiveness. Whereas something other than self-interest may define what that is, it may in turn be at odds with aforementioned principle. Distraction techniques also work well against something that is implied rather than present.
Assuming the above to be true, it is safe to say that any attempts at comparison of the tactics SJWs use against the strategic wisdom inherent in the traditions and ideologies they seek to replace are doomed to failure, not just as false equivocations, as argumentum ad temperentiam / populam / baculum, nor even are they destined to fall on the incompetence of their syllogisms.
Such comparisons are simply category error. Tactics != Strategy
SJWs can have no coherent strategy other than destruction.
No offensive tactics are permissible to the Anti-SJW for any purpose other than defence.
To move away from the topic of strategy vs tactics for a moment, contemplate the nature of each. SJWs seek to divide, to isolate, to polarise. Those that oppose them draw on the shared values that civilisation is built upon.
Spoiler Warning: All the preceeding verbiage was of course foreplay to enable me to spout off some half baked moderate wishy washy, namby pamby, half baked "Jesus loves" you crap that has been brainwashed into me by the evil 17th century Kabballist Spinoza, so if you have only made it this far in the hope of being able to get off on how you would shoot me in the face if I tried to get in the way of your constitooshnl right to unload your ordinance at dangerous enemy nationals, it was worth the wait.
I can understand that some envy the ruthlessness that defines the SJW crowd, but it rather baffles me why anybody would want to ape their ruthless divisiveness. Whilst a house divided is a great place to throw a party, it isn't somewhere that I would like to live.
I don't look at intersectional Feminists in awestruck admiration at the purity or versatility of their polemic (cant even decide which it is...) when they move to ban other feminists from speaking for suggesting that other feminists with whom both parties disagree may be worthy of debate. I rightly consider it to be a manifestation of insanity.
Let's call it "meta-conflict". Do you really want to get into that? Whilst we can agree that swift furious rage driven application of blunt force trauma is an appropriate response to discovering somebody in flagrante delicto non consensuallissimus with your nearest and dearest or a young person, it strikes me as rather unproductive to insist on the excommunication of anybody who might tolerate the existence of a personage guilty of insufficient enthusiasm for instant execution of anybody who failed to prevent the act.
SJWs is as SJWs does. The moment you take up arms in somebody else's defence you declare "W"ar in the name of "J"ustice on behalf of a member of "S"ociety. That somebody may be a member of your family, a neighbour, a fellow countryman, a member of your ethnic race, or the human race. The difference comes down to a combination of whether you actually represent the wishes or interests of the people you purport to defend, along with proportionality of the solutions you propose relative to the magnitude of the problem in something other than your own imagination. The difference also lies in good part on whether you are able to apply some degree of fairness and equality in how you proscribe transgressions. Whether you can put yourself in the shoes of the accused and ask how you would have acted in their position.
And yes, that does lead onto "I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me, I'm just a poor boy from a poor family...." Every ideology contains the seeds of its own destruction in this fallen world after all.