I think GP's point was that "social justice warrior" is a loaded term with a political agenda behind it, and that using it detracts from your overall point (both in the article, and in your explanation for using it in the above comment)
Leaving aside what we know for a moment — wouldn't I be addressing a social issue and looking for justice in a hostile (warrior) way because of something that happened to me?
If you want to break each word down individually then yeah, sure. But you can never divorce a phrase/words from their social meaning. What is implied between the lines carries just as much weight, if not more than the literal text.
You may feel that you are doing simply just that, without any political implications, but most people are not going to interpret it that way. The thought will not be successfully communicated, as the unnecessary politically charged language will overshadow your actual point. This can be easily fixed by removing that particular phrase.