A fork is not an attack. It is a fork. Bitcoin does not care about forks, because they are not Bitcoin.
It IS 100% an attack when the hardforkers are trying to steal the Bitcoin brand.
There may be some "friendly-forks" that just want to hardfork BTC to issue their altcoin and they recognize themselves as an altcoin.
Another very different story is when government shills like Jeff Garzik or Roger Ver try to turn segwit2x or BCash into BTC, claiming it's the real bitcoin. In fact, Jeff Garzik claims in november exchanges will list segwit2xCoin as BTC and it will become de-facto Bitcoin (of course they are bribing miners and merchants with fiat gov-sponsored money). These are the terrorists against Bitcoin that need to be flushed.
How can the SW2x be such an unfriendly one or do you think the SW (SF) part was unfriendly as well?
So you see that there is no one or the other - that's live.
Segwit wasn't a hardfork that derived in another chain/token that then claims to be the real Bitcoin. If you don't like segwit then don't accept segwit transactions, simple as that.
SegWit was activated by consensus. That's all that matters. If consensus hadn't been reached, SegWit wouldn't exist in Bitcoin. Users, miners and non-mining nodes could have continued persuing a minority chain with SegWit in the event it hadn't gained consensus, leading to two chains, the minority chain being an altcoin. The same applies to the 2mb blocksize. There will either be consensus or there won't. If there isn't consensus for 2x, again people can pursue a minority chain as an altcoin. The thing you seem to be failing to grasp, which I doubt will change any time soon, is that like SegWit, there may be consensus for 2mb and that will then become part of Bitcoin. If that happens, you can still follow the altcoin if you don't like 2x, simple as that.