zlacker

>>tech-h+(OP)
There are two narratives:

1. These people are rabble-rousers who will never be happy and are disrupting the work environment at Google.

2. These people are highlighting legitimate problems within the company and are trying to enact positive change.

Take your pick. But be aware of both narratives. And be aware that neither of them is unreasonable.

>>leftyt+dn
> These people are rabble-rousers who will never be happy

No, this one is unreasonable. It's this weird narcissistic thing that people do where they define a person's identity by how that person feels about them.

Just because I hate you doesn't mean I'm a hater. I also like things, just not you. Just because I'm unhappy with you doesn't mean that I am not happy, it means I'm not happy with you.

>>pessim+Xv
If I think my coworker is disagreeable and is preventing me from being productive and my coworker disagrees, am I "defining his/her identity"? That language seems very odd to me. What's the difference between "defining someone's identity" and "having an opinion about someone that is contrary to how they view themselves"?

More broadly, you seem to be saying that the only reason anyone is skeptical of the Google protestors is that that the protestors don't like that person. That's quite an assumption. In reality, people simply disagree about things. And there's room for reasonable disagreement.