Plus, consensus changing once doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to change again, unless those who decided they couldn't follow along volunteered to fork away, meaning their voice would hold no weight in future forks. Think about it.
I am thinking about it. There is a dynamic called precedence, which works in a lot of practices. Once a pattern or practice is established that becomes the standard for the future.
If everyone who is involved in securing the network now remains part of the network after a fork, it's no easier or harder for consensus to change again in future because every participant still has the same power they always had. There's still no change in the consensus mechanism. It's still not a change in governance. You're still wide of the mark.
What the fuck are you talking about? There is no such thing as everyone staying the same. Stakeholds and participants are constantly changing in the real world, and power is partly distributed by participation and effort. So if a standard is established in which a change is made because of this much hash power is accumulated, for example, then that would be a guideline for future decisions for change. I don't know why you are trying to personalize this question regarding consensus.
Obviously participation levels change over time as a natural ebb and flow, but we're talking about what happens during a fork. The point is, a consensual fork in and of itself doesn't necessarily change the level of participation. Or to put it another way, a bucket can hold more or less water depending on how far you decide to fill it up, but if you tip all that water into a second bucket, the act of moving the water from one bucket to another doesn't change the amount of water you had in it (unless it gets messy like a contentious fork might). So again, a fork doesn't necessarily make it easier to fork again in future, unless some of the people securing the network decide they don't want to participate anymore because they don't approve of the new fork. And precedence or not, it doesn't mean Bitcoin will start forking for shits and giggles whenever a new idea gets proposed. It will only happen if and when consensus decides so. Which is how it has always been. And
if that's how it has always been, it clearly isn't a change in governance.
All said, it sounds as though you want to make the argument that just because you don't think the rules should change, that no one can change them, but can't quite bring yourself to say it.
and even if some of those changes do occur over time, as you mentioned with your examples, it does not mean that there is not going to be resistance to various more extreme attempts, such as attempts to hardfork at lower consensus levels.
It's entirely up to those who choose to run the code what level of support they're willing to accept before taking the plunge. Nothin' you can do to stop 'em, but you don't have to join 'em. And still not a change in governance if they can form the longest chain and have sufficient node support and economic activity to propagate that chain. Again, that's just how Bitcoin works.