That's an interesting observation given that SJWs are very... forceful about separating everyone into sheep and goats. They have come to heavily depend upon the existence of "the enemy" fighting which constitutes most of their raison d'etre

Of course people of good will come to agree with them, isn't it self evident that if any normal person realizes here is someone who as had a life accident and is doing the emotional equivalent of bleeding, of course they would stop and help, giving what ever validation and encouragement that want. It's hard to imagine how anyone could think so callously. They must be down right evil and we don't want them around. Of course it's only a few people who are like that, most people just haven't realized there is really someone hurting in their feelings here, they will gather round to help and kick the few bad people out of decent society.

Seriously, even though are plenty of instances of SJWs doing the normal human thing and lashing out with hurtful words and people they are angry at, I also think a lot of them would expect most people to agree with them, if only they understood. They see the specific small group they are targeting at the moment and think of that as the problem and don't step back and view the SJM as a whole and realize how many people are targets or potential targets.

In a non-Christian country I would not expect the majority of people to stop and help me after an accident, though I would expect some. But I would expect more of the people who stopped to help to be think that I looked like a rich westerner at that either my high-status would boost theirs through even a brief association or that I was a good opportunity for a hustle.

As for the reference req request, I don't know of any. This is possibly because I am not part of the SJM and don't know as much as an insider. But I can think of a couple of reasons such a reference might not exist. One is that generally the people in the movement don't want to examine their assumptions and open them up to criticism. Second is that, while from the outside the SJM is identifiable as a distinct thing, from within I think SJM just looks like the right way to act on liberalism writ large or the natural progression of progressivism.

I would also note that an emotional impulse to make someone who is sad feel better, however genuine, is not the same thing as an intellectual commitment understand the problem and find ways to solve it.

Not sure if this guy is sufficiently SJW, but once in a while I notice him writing something smart. Here are some quotes:

A few months back I got into a Twitter argument about the uselessness of complaints about cultural appropriation, in particular a muscular form that takes it as offensive to consume the goods of cultures to which one does not belong — food, clothing, music, and so on. I pointed out the usual problems with this thinking. All culture is hybrid; there is no place where legitimate appreciation ends and shameful appropriation begins; a world without cultural borrowing is a bleak and terrible place; and as I’ve said many times, saying “you should only consume that which comes from your own culture” is functionally identical to the efforts of white supremacists to keep the people pure.

-- the sublime narcissism of getting offended on other people’s behalf

One of American liberalism’s many abundant problems is an ingrained sense that the people it most needs to convince are somehow not worthy of the effort.

-- I wonder why people are so angry

My many unhappy debates with liberals have demonstrated to me that, for every one of them that is motivated by a sincere desire to help everyone, another is motivated by the base instinct to place him or herself above others on the hierarchy of righteousness. American liberalism has become so deeply habituated to the practice of ceaseless and totalizing moral judgment that it seems incapable of expressing itself with any other kind of vocabulary. And the inevitable outcome of a politics of personal righteousness is an ideology made up only of commissars, an army of inquisitors who must by necessity believe in a vast throng of sinners and a small band of saints, with themselves standing as the greatest among this latter group. That’s the opposite of what I’m interested in. I’m not invested in politics out of a desire to be one of the elect. I am invested in politics because I want to destroy the concept of the elect.

-- in the simple foundation

For good or for bad (and you can guess how I’d adjudicate that), progressive politics have adopted cruelty as a core function. Those who are deemed politically unclean — often, I will fully admit, for very good reason, as the world is full of people with shitty opinions that are naturally offensive — are widely believed to be worthy targets of mass character assassination, subject to petty personal insults and existential moral denunciations. I find that so banal a statement of reality I’m not sure anyone could deny that it happens with a straight face. (...) It’s remarkable, on social media, how many of the insults and attacks boil down to more-or-less naked statements of, “I am a member in good standing of this group, and you aren’t, and my group has agreed on your irrelevance and your lack of value.”

-- if you’re not careful who’s in and who’s out becomes the only question