I just want to point out what appears to be doublespeak going on here. 

First, I think it would seem obvious to an observer that a sizable portion of the community (certainly greater than 5%) view segwit as preventing "rules I want to use instead of just peacefully splitting" but no consideration was given to these people when designing segwit as a softfork. I believe it was Luke who went as far as saying consensus does not matter when it comes softforks. 

Furthermore, when segwit was first introduced it kicked off a round of softfork/hardfork debate which I participated in. The primary concern that I and other raised was precisely what is going on now.. that miners could unilaterally impose an unpopular change to the protocol rules. 

At the time I told, rather forcefully, by multiple people that miners have an "absolute right" to softfork in whatever rules they want. Which, of course, is absurd on it's face.

But I don't see how people can make such claims on the one hand, and then complain when this process is used against them.

It amounts to nothing more than "When it's rules I like we get to impose them on non-consenting users. When it's rules I don't like it's an attack on the network". 

It was completely obvious this entire time that softforks were a very slippery slope, now we are indeed sliding down that slope.