Book challenges, charged speech, and basic myths.

This is a very long philosophical rant partially in response to the recent articles about a book challenge in Tampa to Mildred Taylor's "The Land"

I've been thinking a lot lately about the kinds of discussions that just don't go well.  I'm very prone to this kind of discussion because I have an unusual background and an unusual set of interests.  Therefore my feelings on a lot of common issues do not match those of other people.  I get in a lot of uncomfortable conversations because I don't realize quickly enough that someone asking me a question wasn't really asking a question - they assumed that I felt exactly as they did and were just reaching out for reassurance.

The issue as I see it is that our culture has a lot of what I'd call basic myths.  These stories or beliefs about cultural institutions are the basis for many people's arguments.  Often a vicious argument ensues when a cultural institution that has both a "basic myth" and a very different "record of fact" is brought into discussion, and one person argues from the point of view of the "ideal" or "basic myth" of the institution, while the other person argues from the "record of fact".  Usually these myths involve the idea of safety.  The myth version of an institution promises safety, and people react in a negative and violent manner to patterns of data that run counter to that myth of safety.

( Some examples and more thoughts behind the cut )