Agreed, gold is ideal if you want to escape the problem of subjective human beings, and assuming you can store it yourself securely for many years.

People react one of two ways to this problem in Bitcoin, they either fall into an extreme "no hard fork" position where they believe no hard fork change in Bitcoin is ever justified, or they fall into what can be best described as advocating for some vague "social defense" of Bitcoin should anyone attempt to redefine it. The problem is these attacks don't come from an external source, they come from other Bitcoiners disagreeing with each other. Some of the people that enjoyed reading nullius' post and agreed with it might have a future disagreement with each other, at which point they won't see themselves as allies but as enemies and each person will believe he's defending Bitcoin. Furthermore a soft fork can change Bitcoin just as much as a hard fork can, and many Bitcoiners might reject a chain if it introduced certain soft fork changes (e.g. a tax on miners to fund development can be implemented as a soft fork).

The only way we can reasonably deal with this is by never changing. No soft forks. No hard forks. No consensus change ever again. And let the protocol sit and calcify so nobody could ever change it. That all but guarantees Bitcoin will become a failure though, and it's impossible. Technology needs to keep up with the times and continue to be maintained and improved on so bugs and security issues get resolved. But each time Bitcoin undergoes a change, we risk it turning into a political quagmire and exposing the cracks hidden in the system. We all remember the dirty drama with Segwit and UASF.