'Non-contentious' is a scale. If one person has concerns about it, it could be considered contentious. This person may not make their case known for a number of valid reasons. The hard fork was then 'generally non-contentious' and had broad social consensus otherwise. However this person's status quo was changed against their will.
If the number of users of Monero increased, the number of people who would not want a given hard-fork would likely increase, and the number of people who had the protocol 'rugpulled' would increase.
This is far far less likely to happen with Bitcoin.
Lovin the nickname xD
Very true, and a good critique! So far I have seen literally 0 contention, but as Monero grows that will absolutely change. That is why we've already seen ossification (similar to Bitcoin) from 6mo hard-forks to multiple years between. We will see hard-forks more and more infrequently as we grow and that's a good thing, but the option does need to remain due to privacy being something that is quite fluid.
I also expect that there will be contentious changes proposed at some point in the future, and I'm sure the immune response of Monero will be strong and fight back against them (and I will gladly join forces if the proposed changes go against the core ethos and social consensus of Monero).