Not really, but it's important to highlight what you're actually against.
A major problem with the term "SJW" being thrown around is how liberally it is used. Some people seem to believe that anyone with an even slightly liberally leaning opinion on certain stances is an SJW.
For me, I have a pretty outlined way of identifying an SJW. For me, it's extremely strange when you see me, a well known and highly vocal liberal, suddenly called "conservative". To me, people who consider me an extremely conservative individual are people who are so deluded in their political beliefs that they are an "SJW". In addition, someone who has to claim that you are part of some majority to attempt to defraud your beliefs (white, cis, male, christian, ect.) is also an SJW, because they rely on incredulous debate tactics.
Now going to the question at hand… it's not hypocritical if you engage yourself properly. For example, a common mistake from Gamergate supporters (which I am guilty of myself, when I supported the movement last year) is that we should shut down SJW opinions because they're against free speech. Now, obviously the hypocrisy here is clear – you're defending free speech while trying to shut down someone else's free speech. However, if you instead worded it that you believe that journalists should follow a code to prevent bias, it would not be hypocritical – because you are saying that journalists should follow standards to provide the best quality content to their readers – their free speech is not bound elsewhere and only applies to offering a good service to people, and is not enforced (rather, it is encouraged due to better reviews and higher viewership).
In addition, people simply being offended by something does not warrant any changes. If we literally tried to change the world every time someone was offended, it would be extremely unstable. People are offended by other ways of life all the time. Mere offence is not enough. What is more important is how this offence is actually affecting other people's lives. This is something that's not really addressed a lot, so let me give a good example in the blind community.
On tumblr, I remember seeing a ridiculous post saying that you couldn't make blind jokes because it could "trigger" blind people. Clearly the writer of this thought that blind jokes were offensive based on this. However, them simply being offended is not enough. How do blind people actually get affected by this? Well, their feelings could be hurt, but let's be honest here – more often than not, blind people are making jokes about themselves, so your offence is not as important as the blind person's opinion, which is "lol who gives a shit" 90% of the time. However, a tumblr user being offended by actions from an employer that limit a blind person's task based on the false pretense that they couldn't do it is different – because it actually does affect someone else's lives.
In addition, it isn't hypocrisy to call someone out – as long as you're not doing the same thing back. If you're going around and saying that SJWs should die because they're saying white people should die, you're a hypocrite. But simply calling out SJWs on their behaviour isn't a hypocritical thing – it's needed in order to regulate opinions away from radicalism, which is what SJWs essentially are. These people exist because they refuse to self regulate through things like Devil's Advocate or Peer Review and thus are regulated by society pointing out their wrongdoings.
So in short, it isn't automatically hypocritical. It really depends on how you engage yourself – a lot of the activists on both sides can be just as slimy as each other.
