omething happens that some people take as an implication that things should change.

That implication is either not obvious to others, or actively ignored.

Disagreement ensues.

The same is true of any system in homeostasis. Any disturbance either progresses via
complex adaptation to some new equilibrium or reverts to the old one (which, of course,
was only ever perpetually unstable in the first place).

Everything is a matter of perspective.

The first thing is when the gap between different perspectives is large and these
perspectives are highly polarized and opposed.

The second thing is that the topic should have high stakes.

If both conditions are met, a clash happens, controversy is created.

Example;

1- I believe hot dogs are excellent, someone else believes they are terrible.

Huge gap, small stake. No controversy.

2- I believe hot dogs are quite good, someone else believes they are quite bad.

Small gap, small stake. No controversy.

3- I am slightly for the death penalty, someone else is slightly against the death penalty.

Small gap, big stake. No controversy.

4- I am against the death penalty, someone else is for the death penalty.

Huge gap, big stake. Controversy.

So it needs both a big gap in perspective and something big at stake.