Been in bitcoin for years. Each time there is an improvement in protocols there will always be FUD. But it will be good to look above the technical issues and see the basis of how bitcoin works: a community that supports the development and use of bitcoin. And as long as they support and sustain btc, it doesn't matter how many hardforks occur.
Here's the problem. Core developers (most Bitcoin developers) don't see it as an improvement, and actively oppose the fork. So, if the Segwit2x team and the miners/businesses backing them really move forward with the fork, then the FUD is warranted.
This isn't like a soft fork where a simple majority of miners can prevent a split from occurring. A hard fork "upgrade" requires that every user installs new software and joins a new network. That means a split is guaranteed already. Add the fact that Core and many BTC users don't support Segwit2x? Get your popcorn ready.
So what's the purpose of the NY agreement conspirators forking Bitcoin (again) provided there is no consensus between them and the Bitcoin Core team (which seems to be the case)? Would it make any sense to create yet another Bitcoin when there is already an 8M block Bitcoin? I don't think that two Bitcoins is a good idea anyway but three is certainly an overkill. Could the SegWit2x proponents just abandon the 2x part since it would basically replicate Bitcoin Cash if made into a separate Bitcoin?