Oh I mean there are real people who warrant the label, it si a real phenomenon. In genuine cases, it isn't really someone making a 'social case', at least that is only what it is on the very superficial level. It tends to be, hmm, look up the term 'virtue-signalling', and read this. A genuine SJW is someone who manufactures a sense of moral panic in order to degrade others in the pursuit of accumulating some kind of perceived social capital, as that article describes - so I am perfectly fine with degrading them with a name like that, as I see it, they have already degraded themselves by operating the way they do, or shown that dignity is not a native concept to them. I find it quite easy to distinguish between someone making an argument or engaging in a discourse and someone doing the above.

It is so broad and vague in it's use, that I don't trust comments that use it. It just degrades the person trying to make a social case - emotional, irrational or logical.

Lol that might be true in a lot of cases, but that is pretty much the definitive characteristic of the lexicon used by SJWs, which they are pretty much defined by.

Is the term misused, does it exceed the bounds of its proper usage, are there people who will call you an SJW for not pissing on the homeless? Sure, it's a meme-term and its domain is the internet, how could it be any other way? It could simply be the case that people who call others SJWs are the biggest SJWs of all.