Well, it is usually in the sense that people are more likely to discuss issues they are pissed off about (proof is available of such if needed, but just think of how much more likely you are to contact a company if they pissed you off, as opposed to just marginally satisfied you). Thus, controversial issues such as this might go left undiscussed if they didn't rile a certain crowd.
That said, I'd agree that it would be better to refer to it as being 'roused' to discussion.
I meant that it's likely to challenge some presumption held by nearly every reader. I enjoy honest analysis when it says: Side A is wrong and Side B is wrong, the answer lies elsewhere.
Everyone is angry at first because their sacred cow has been tossed on the grill, but in the end we reconcile and have a great cookout.
