I agree that Bitcoin should not stay the way it is. Cryptocurrencies are evolving, and it's getting left behind. Forks, obviously, are the only way to accomplish this, so I cannot say I am truly against forks. What I am against, though, are hostile take overs. I have no opinion over the integrity of the core members, but if the team behind S2X truly wanted to change Bitcoin for the better, it shouldn't have to be "my way or the highway."
I'm sure it would not have been impossible to come up with a compromise especially if all the involved parties have the same end goal. Instead, they're going to push through with the fork, and they don't even plan on implementing replay protection -- if that isn't hostile, I don't know what is. Forks aren't inherently bad because they come with improvements, but they should be done in the correct manner in my opinion.
Blockstream is cancer, that's not up for discussion. But why is Core so adamant about not increasing the size to 2? Just 2, the whole system is bottlenecked and they want to wait. This wait is hurting Bitcoin way more than a measly 2mb size. Personally, based on my own analysis, a 2mb cannot be bad. Going higher, probably. At least for now. I could see 4mb being ok for 2020+