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.
With that said, I have not followed this closely. For all I know, that evidence does exist and/or Google leadership has chosen not make said evidence publicly available.
Seems reasonable to me.
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.
On the other hand if the situations you mentioned are unrelated to the Women’s March, which it seems they are, then I really don’t see them as being relevant to whether or not the people in question were rabble rousers. Protestors are not a constant set of people and each protest and the organizers of said protest have to be looked at individually, at least in terms of determining whether 1. or 2. is most reasonable.
Otherwise, it’s a broad generalization of “protestors”, which would inadvertently make 2. the more reasonable narrative as well because 1. would be moot to the specifics of the particular situation.
Companies don't have thoughts or emotions. A company's actions are a result of the individuals that make it up. When you see controversy like the China thing or military contracts, that's just how decisions get made in big companies. Someone wants to get money from the military. Some other people don't. They discuss it and the company makes a decision by individuals taking action. People inside Google that wanted to do military contracts heard the counterarguments and didn't carry on. That's all.
Maybe Larry Page thought "hey, this is bad for our brand" and fired all in charge. But that seems very unlikely. What seems likely to me is that the people that wanted to do the project heard the controversy and decided on their own that it wasn't a good idea.
As the company gets bigger, there are certainly more and more of these controversies. It does get hard to manage when you feel personally responsible for what others have done and your voice is not heard. That is why people are leaving.
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.
The difference is that once you establish that it's "defining someone's identity", then disagreement with that person is "denying their right to exist", and so basically violence, from which the person you disagreed with deserve protection. These are the lines along which this kind of conversations typically proceeded inside Google.
Hyperbole doesn't even begin to describe this.
The tech echo-chamber is fostering unrealistic opinions about life and liberty.
Furthermore, I specifically mean the leadership at Google when I simply say Google. I’m referring directly to the people deciding resolution or retaliation. Whether that’s a single person or a group of people, it doesn’t matter. By enacting a change that’s protested for, they’re legitimizing the concerns set forth by the protest (aka supporting the notion that they’re real moral issues and the opposite of rabble-rousing)
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.
This statement alone should be enough to reverse Citizens United vs FEC.