There’s a little bit of useful analysis here but both of these views of consensus are contrived exaggerations. Bitcoin isn’t held together by some ‘extreme consensus’ but by the interests of all parties aligning so that nobody can take advantage of others to game the system. Try Googling Nash Equilibrium. If that equilibrium is broken the state of the system can break down dramatically. Altering the game theory aspects is far more risky, unpredictable and hard to get right than changing some c++ code.
One possible change to the protocol, which is not immutable, does not make a separate change any more or less difficult. A contentious one only helps to provide evidence that the system is or is not robust against such changes. A non contentious one can still go ahead at a later time. If a contentious one does cause a split then it provides evidence that the system is not robust against attacks and therfore more risky and so less valuable.
As for ‘market consensus’, there is no market in possible changes. At least not until there is a futures or betting market in bitcoin unlimited tokens or other possible future forks.
Trying to pretend that the division is between those against all change and those who think some market should decide what should change is just setting up another argument that doesn’t exist. It is about how things change not whether or not they should.