{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017135862913096694, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.884892086330935, '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}}
Can we all agree that consensus is over-rated? From righteousness to relations across differences

Many believe that building consensus is the best way to solve problems. If consensus means bringing people together as a community, as it does in the Quaker tradition, then perhaps consensus might be a generative way to problem solve. Yet this is not the commonly shared understanding (or use) of consensus. In this paper I refer to our popularized view of consensus and not to views associated with Quaker or other traditions where consensus is focused on building community. I am limiting my focus to our more common understanding of consensus-as-agreement because I believe it is this limiting view of consensus that is most often practiced, with the result of fracturing communities and furthering social problems.