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.

>>leftyt+f11
The part about defining identity is, I think, referring to the fallacy of seeing someone in a context, and then thinking that they "are" that. Like meeting someone who is angry and storing them in your memory bank as "that angry person," as if they were angry all the time (they may indeed be, but you don't know). Add to that, the errors inherent in the act of perception: Are they really angry or did you misperceive it that way?

In your example, the co-worker may be "your disagreeable co-worker" (definition), or they might simply be "your agreeable co-worker" who momentarily disagrees with you or your ideas.

If your opinion about someone is right enough, often enough, that it serves as a workable summary of that person, that (ideally) a lot of people agree on, who have no vested interest in agreeing, then you could start to be objectively convinced there was no difference between your opinion of that person, and the definition of that person. But no simple definition of a person is ever going to capture the whole story - people are too complex.