Not sure I would agree with either. I think in terms of counter examples here. Blessed Maximillian Kolbe, or the White Rose cannot be understood morally unless we look at their character. Their moral example and goodness is not that they were great consequentialist calculators, fanatical devotees of duty, but had a character that embodied goodness. And I do not think they had galaxy sized brains. The problem is to elaborate why they are good, why they are moral exemplas.1. In my view, Virtue Ethics is fine if you're a galaxy-brained professional philosopher with the intelligence and self-discipline to take a good hard look at yourself and make critical moral judgements about your own character.
2. That's why it's important to watch what they do more than what they say, because it shows the actual thinking that is going on in the background.
I agree that SJW actions belie their understanding of morality - but they couch their actions in terms of morality. They seem to me to be moral fanatics. And the fanaticism is, to my mind, not what sort of person do I want to be, but what is, in my self-centred view good for humanity or the duty here. So, I am not sure that virtue is a useful way to understand or describe SJW. They tend to be deeply unreflective. The reflection is the basis of phronesis - practical wisdom - the basis all true virtue, at least to Aristotle and seneca. Moreover, SJW are driven by passions that are uncontrolled and not ordered. And that is another hallmark of virtue. According to the ancients, at least, and many of the moderns.
The question you raise, however, is important - and can be generalised: what sort of moral actor is this or that person? Because we often fail to ask that and seek an answer we come away with hopelessly simplistic labels that do more harm than good: Incel, white supremacist, are the two getting a run at the moment.
Anyway, thanks for raising this. It has given me necessary relief from the travails of my wanderings to reflect on things that matter a bit more!