I guess that's what happens with any position of power.
1) They get to set the rules and standards, changing them as necessary for their ends. This way they maintain the appearance of fairness, democracy, reasonableness, openness, etc. while actually doing whatever they want.
2) More subtly, they get to interpret what words mean, like fork/consensus/economic majority, again changing the interpretation to suit their needs, even from sentence to sentence. This allows all sorts of fallacious reasoning in their favor that joiners are unable to detect because they feel a strong pressure to see the world through the social construct of language and can always be cajoled by the combination of authority + semantic blur to believe something just because it "sounds right."
I've always rejected the whole premise of any sort of consensus being necessary for changes. It's a dead end concept, and BIP101 plays right into it.
I believe the only effective counter is to reject the whole idea that Core has any authority. See through and call out their semantic games every time. Demand consistent definitions despite social pressure and authority that cries, "Come on, we all know what we mean here. Stop trolling."
Most of all, create the tools for a market-based decision on forks (I suggest fork arbitrage by having exchanges offer options-to-buy coins in each fork) so that such consensus smokescreens can never get off the ground.