>Not sure what you're trying to say here.My apologies. People who are not politically active (eg: casual Facebook browsers) will never, ever come across the term "SJW". They may have seen it a few times. If they're college-aged maybe they have a friend in college who describes themselves as a "SJW" in a positive light. 1-2 interactions with SJW's using "SJW" as a positive term is enough for them to see the term in a positive/neutral way, as opposed to the way heavy internet users who scour Twitter for hours a day and are active in the #Gamergate hashtag will see the term "SJW".
If you browse Github, HackerNews, /r/TumblrInAction, or Twitter frequently then your chances of running into the term "SJW" increases as does your chances of seeing it used in mostly a negative way.
To then assume that everyone "knows" the term is a negative one when it's sphere of influence is a few small niches of the internet is being dishonest. Especially when that person denies said accusation.
>My political engagement has been entirely contrary to the war-profiteering, plundering, pro-corporate elites that run the world, but by all means you keep going after those evil college kids and feminists!
Why not both? Dangerous elites are only as dangerous as the public allows them to be. How many singular elites can kill thousands or millions of people without people to do the killing for them?
History has a historically thin line between "these people are bad" and "these people are bad and we should round them up and kill them". When people actively use the rhetoric of the latter, I listen and grow concerned...