I suppose by that argument the Russian revolution (to use one of countless examples) was, by definition, not a 'hostile' fork since it was democratic.
In any conflict, once the first shot is fired all involved parties are are appropriately labeled 'belligerents'. As to who 'started it', that is left to the history books and these are, as they say, 'written by the victors.'
The fundemental error here is failing to recognize the voluntary nature of currency adoption.
Gavin proposed a change to Bitcoin that users are free to accept or decline.
That some developers interpreted this as a threat and turned it into a battle only shows the weakness of their position.
The proper response would have been to convince people to not choose the change by explaning why they would be better of by doing so.
Instead, they acted with outrage over the idea that somebody proposed something without their permission and was doing a better job of convincing people that they'd benefit from his proposal instead of theirs.
This is not a sustainable position for them. Money is only as valuable as there are other people willing to accept it, and nobody is in a position to force anybody to accept Bitcoin.
People who act on the expectation that their opinions are right by default because they were there first and so aren't subject to continual validation in the marketplace of ideas are going to end up losing everything.
Well said, and I think a lot of people see it this way.
There are lots of people who understand Bitcoin well enough and back a blocksize increase. Them being simply told they are unqualified to have a view/voice and to trust the "experts" without any sensible counter arguments, has turned them off as well it should.
And lots of people will remember this when it comes time to propose the SC fork.