Ok, I think I see what's leading you to say this.
To begin with, remember that BU is explictly defined as a hard fork. Naming no names, but there are some excessively over-complicated descriptions of the difference between the two. But there are nuanced sub-categories of each type, so there is some grounding in reality to presenting every subcategory at once (but it's more confusing presented that way).
It's clearer like this:
The 2 overall categories: hard and soft
Hard fork: the blockchain splits in 2
Soft fork: the blockchain remains as 1
no the emboldened parts are exaggerated propaganda of taking softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario.
hiding the fact that even going soft can split the network(core actually admit that it exists in their bip9, to orphan and ban the opposer once active).
hiding the fact that even going hard can keep the network together(thats how true consensus works node and pool agreement).
for reference:
clarity
soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote
below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains
hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains
