Skip to main content

Musing on the News - Book Bans

 

              Time published an article on 4/20 titled “New Report Finds That Book Bans Have Reached Their Highest Levels Yet.” As an avid reader I am immediately bothered by this, but I think it is worth explaining why.

              First, over half the country is functionally illiterate, and even more don’t like to read, so who are we banning books for, anyway? It’s not like online ads that subliminally change your thinking. If you want to read a book, you have to physically get it, let someone else know what you’re reading (checking it out of a library or buying it in a store), and spend hours reading the material, depending on how fast you read. Reading is also self-selecting, as you can figure out by the book cover and back if you want to spend the time to decipher its contents. Reading social media and news is anonymous (except for the data points being collected on your online behavior), short, and based on what will keep you online, not what will enrich your life. Oh yeah, and it’s not vetted by anybody.

              One reason I know this idea of banning books is bad is historical. No movement that restricted access to books ever signaled anything positive. Another reason I know it is bad is because it doesn’t impact most people, so any good they are intending to do is lost on most Americans. I know this because I have worked for several schools in the Bay Area, including those that can be considered “elite,” and do you know what I learned? Most high school students don’t read the books, and this has been true for over a decade. So who are we protecting? The books are too advanced for young kids, and the older ones don’t read anyway. If they did, their targeted ads will give them something they will want to read. Oh wait, the targeted ads don’t advertise books; they advertise games, make-up, vaping, and clothing. So why are we banning books?

              Have any of these people even read any of these books, or are they just afraid of the content? We fear what we don’t understand, so it may be worth reading those book after all.

I am sure that anyone who is advocating banning books has not read Fahrenheit 451. If they did, they completely missed the point. The only thing Bradbury got wrong was the nuclear end: it’s psychological manipulation on our digital platforms that will be our demise. To read a book is to commit to learning what someone else has taken hours, months, and sometimes years to present to the public. They have been read, edited, and vetted by other people. The ads and social media posts that people choose to look at have not been. This is more chaotic, less regulated, and more dangerous than a book could ever be. So I ask again: why are we banning books?

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Hold

  The Viral Candidate – On Hold               I really don’t want to run for office. I’m an idea person, not an implementation person. I have a lot of ideas that I think would do a lot of good. I realized that all the political candidates have done something “noteworthy” in politics or life before trying to run the country. This feels elitist, but also ensures intelligent, capable people are the ones running. Or maybe those are the people who refuse to run because our political landscape has gotten so toxic. With that thought, I want to finish some of my ideas and do something larger than being a high school teacher before I try to imagine a national political campaign. Therefore, I am putting the Viral Candidate project on hold for a year.               I have been trying to find a way to build a platform and have done so with little guidance so far...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Viral Candidate - Housing

Am I actually running for president? Not now. I am reasonable enough to know that an idea borne of frustration at lacking a candidate that represents me and my family is not going to change the world. But an idea can change the world, and these generations are the ones most capable of doing so. I am going to dream of a world where no one is hungry, thirsty, or at the mercy of the elements. If I was running for president, I would need to explain my platform, get feedback, and adapt it to the needs of each community. The problem is most people focus on one or two issues and try to solve them independently. What I have learned as a science teacher and a student of the social sciences is that many issues are intertwined and need to be addressed as a whole, instead of in parts, if they are going to be any good for the average American.               For example, I want to tackle homelessness. That is a doozy and requires so...
Post a Comment
Read more

The DIY Rape Kit

This is one of my ideas that will have to be implemented in The Study in order for some of the programs to work.               Melania Trump had a point when she said that women need hard evidence before they accuse a man of sexual assault. Women are not believed as victims, and he said-she said is very hard to prove. We also live in a culture where the woman is often blamed for the incident, including by herself. We live in a culture where “boys will be boys” and we train women on how to avoid an all-too-common scenario, as if they have the power to prevent the situation from occurring. All this means that if women need hard evidence to see their accusers brought to justice, they need a way to gather evidence in a way that is less traumatic for the survivors, so that more will be empowered to come forward.               Talk to someone who was strong ...
Post a Comment
Read more