I believe some of you might start going deeper into the argument for bigger blocks that you might also start to think Roger Ver and Bitcoin Cash made the right decision, and you might also start debating for Satoshi's original vision.
You should already know that the problem with bcash is not even Ver, nor was it the fact that it increased the block size to whatever MB. The problem with bcash and the reason why it is considered a shitcoin is that it is a contentious hard fork. In other words it was the minority making a change in consensus rules without having the majority's support.
The question effectively becomes: "What does it take to get everyone on the same page?"
We've managed to make a lot of changes in the consensus rules through over a dozen forks and all of them could get "everyone" on board (95%+ and I believe once was 75% threshold).
The problem is toxic people who also spread misinformation. As long as they don't muddy the development process and the community, it is not as hard as you'd think to get everyone on the same page.
So I'd say a better question is "how do we get rid of toxicity?"
Even under the pressure of Ordinals, we can't find agreement within a tiny sample of network participants.
Same. We still haven't been able to get rid of those who continue using the term "token" when referring to Ordinals. That's the simplest and most basic thing! As long as we fail to do that, we fail to move to the next level.
The damage of spreading such misinformation will remain in the Bitcoin community for years too. Like with SegWit that even today there are people who say "SegWit removes signatures from transactions" all because of misinformation similar toxic people spread about it in 2017.