[Hard forks] are more dangerous if there is disagreement regarding their implementation, and they are more dangerous if they attempt to change bitcoin's governance in order to make changes (consensus rules) easier to achieve.
Bitcoin cannot have a "governance". If you do not understand that, then you don't understand the only thing that justifies its existence.
You are being amazingly selective with your framing of the situation.
At the heart, both XT and Classic were aimed at changing governance, and yes, we are lucky, in some sense, that various core supporters opposed those attempts at change of governance - even when we were being mislead into believing that there was some kind of a technical problem with bitcoin.
So, in the end, in some kind of odd way, you ended up being correct that there is some kind of lack of governance in bitcoin... or at least, currently, it seems to be very difficult for a small group to either take it over or to change the way it works.... and that seems to be a feature rather than a bug... but also what makes bitcoin so valuable.... So, you better go buy some now, while prices are in the three digits.
You keep going back over the point to argue against something that is not controverted, and it does not really matter, at this point how complicated it is, etc. etc.. because it is already in the pipeline to be implemented ...
I have no illusions of stopping SegWit. It is quite obvious already that no amount of technical argument from us idiots will change Greg Maxwell's mind once he made it up.
You are again engaging in mischaracterizations to attempt to personalize these kinds of matters. In essence, can't you recognize that you are contradicting yourself from one sentence to another. In one sentence, you acknowledge that bitcoin cannot have governance (maybe in essence recognizing that bitcoin has a form of decentralized existence), and then in the next sentence, you are suggesting that some person has some kind of undue influence... The former is correct (no one person or entity controls bitcoin), and that is a feature, not a bug. Thank you bitcoin, and thank you Satoshi.
FUCD
Er, I must have slept through that too. What is the "C" in "FUCD"?
I adopted this usage from someone else, more because of the overall sound of it, rather than the fact that it could be a bit redundant. C = concern. hahahaha...
sounds a bit more descriptive, when put together..., no?