That is, people who are part of an organization from birth or because they joined and who come to disagree with its policies or doctrines. Then they suggest changes and get nowhere, probably because most people in the organization are content.

Instead of just leaving, saying that they no longer agree, they feel like somehow they have to save it, remake it, or even take it over to repurpose it and make it suit them. It's all about them and they can't just leave. They have to leave in a way that disrupts those they find morally inferior and worthy of contempt (but don't even think of saying bad things about them).

Then, if they succeed in changing the organization in a way that causes another group to leave, typically a larger group, it's good riddance to troublemakers and dissenters. They're the ones that never really belonged and somehow created the disagreement in the first place.

Sometimes I think it's about competing versions of morality and deeply-felt self-superiority and self-righteousness. At other times, I think it's all about not wanting to build another organization and accrue resources, it's about power and shoving their opinions down others' throats or reclaiming the organization's infrastructure for their own purposes. Sort of doctrinal squatting.

My sister-in-law was involved in something like that. After years of fundraising the priest/minister/whatever and about a 100 core members managed to collect money to build a church. It had been up and going for perhaps a year when some marginally attached members got caught up in a significant doctrinal change they demanded, and voted to adopt that change. It split the congregation, and the majority went with the change. They kept the building. The core membership was again meeting in a rented facility with their old priest/minister/whatever. The marginally attached members, no longer exercised over some big social and political fight, were still marginally attached. They contributed little in time and money and quickly returned to attending on occasion, now that there wasn't something to impose on others. Suddenly they had a big, new church building, a new priest, and a weekly attendance numbering in the low 10s. They had trouble keeping the building clean and paying utilities, and a year after the schism they put the building up for sale. The recently split-off group couldn't claim it, they may have done all the work but the organization that suffered a coup still held title. Nor did that group have the money to buy it. So those who'd worked for 10 years for a building finally saw it built, change hands, and then go up for sale in the matter of a couple of years by those who considered themselves morally superior and were glad that the dissidents and trouble makers, those who'd been loyal and faithful members, were gone. Then the winners, having declared victory, closed up shop, turned out the lights, and went home, having destroyed a congregation.