What did I say that was mean?

There are also benefits to being lazy, low energy, and seeking contentment.

If there weren't, those character traits wouldn't exist either.

It's just that applied here, as a means to judge change as inherently bad, it causes problems. Cuz, as I said, change being bad is a coin toss. It could go either way. Also, change often happens as an attempt to correct an imbalance somewhere. Things don't just happen in a vacuum because somebody (or a group) got a willd hair up their butts for no damn reason.

In that case, resistance to change for your own comfort and complacency is to stress sociala bonds because you're basically saying you're okay with someone else (or another group) absorbing harm, because of that imbalance, so long as you get to stay comfortable. And you'll stress the fabric of society in order to stay complacent. That makes you part of that imbalance.

It's like in chemistry. The equation will inherently try to balance itself. Or the surface tension of water. It will inherently seek stability. But you've got to get past looking at things from a moral lens (good vs bad) and look at the impetus, the action, and the fallout.

That's not where Simon is going with this.