SJWs and Emote-sters
Many talk about social justice warriors (SJWs). As with a lot of these sorts of things, this often happens without anyone defining the term. As a rough attempt, I think we can say that SJWs are people that are fired up about about a real or purported injustice and who seek to right the wrong, either with direct activities or, more likely, by protesting and trying to educate others about the injustice, presumably with the hope that those others will take action to right the wrong. SJWs might be mistaken about what they think is an injustice, but they are well-intentioned and (usually) open to correction through civil discourse. We can also learn from them as they are, of course, sometimes right. I tend to like SJWs.
There is another group that I think are often mistaken for SJWs but worth separating out. I will call this group “emote-sters.” Emote-sters will sometimes seem like SJWs but are not the same. Emote-sters are driven by, and tend to broadcast, their emotional responses. Their emotional responses might be about their own interests or not. They might, for example, emotionally respond to claims that single moms need our help because they genuinely care about others who are single moms or merely because they are single moms themselves. (Being lead by emotions is consistent with being entirely self-regarding but is also consistent with being other-regarding.)
When emote-sters appear to be SJWs it is because they respond to the emotional appeals used by SJWs and are happy to broadcast their views on the issue of the day. Reacting as they do to emotional appeals, though, means that they might just as easily respond to emotional appeals SJWs would oppose. They might, for example, get fired up and seek to have their municipal government create laws that disallow multi-family (affordable) housing—perhaps because they fear allowing their community’s character to change, worrying they’ll lose the good “feels” they currently have or worrying about a criminal element moving in. (See this piece by Richard Kahlenberg as well as his book on the topic.)
Emote-sters let their emotional responses guide them in their actions and as such often endorse policies and actions at odds w/their own interests. They are thus prone to finding themselves with reduced wealth. For one simple example, emote-sters might favor recycling policies that are at odds with their own environmentalist sensibilities. They might be extremely (emotionally) committed to saving the environment but their zeal is based on emotions to an extent that excludes rational consideration. Hence, faced w/ information that (for example) recycling styrofoam is bad for the environment, they shut their ears or tell themselves that such information must come from biased sources. They then continue happily recycling such things, even paying to do so. They frustrate their own desires (here, to help the environment) and reduce their wealth (here, paying for someone to “recycle” what shouldn’t be recycled).
Emote-sters are not genuine environmentlsts or SJWs. They might be “emotional environmentalists” or “emotional SJWs” but being unable or unwilling to use reason to address their emotional reactions prevents them from being more. It prevents them accomplishing their goals and from being willing to engage in civil discourse. In the same vein, they may discourage the rest of us from seeking to engage SJWs in civil discourse. We shouldn’t accept that discouragement.