{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017287234042553192, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.783783783783784, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Enabling Democratic Dissent

Dissent, in its distinctive contribution to democratic practice, neither reduces to protest nor advances toward consensus. It is a double-sided discourse with both a solid footing in public culture and a sharp edge for cutting through political orthodoxies. Rhetorical invention is its dynamic. Dissenters must maneuver, like mythical tricksters, to sustain the vitality of democracy. The viability of their democratic interventions depends on the invention of legitimizing gestures. The topos of complementary differences—a pivotal term for articulating points of interdependency between dissenters and the broader public—illustrates the kind of inventive resource to which the field could productively turn its attention.