Why Ban Books?

So I saw a meme on the book banning. The gist of the meme was why the Guns (who kills people) are not banned but the books are. The meme was from the US profile.. and from the notable author. I have read a book from that author so I was frustrated for the novice outlook of the author.

My immediate reaction was the people must be joking if they don’t understand why books are more dangerous than the guns.

Firs of all, I believe guns does not kill people, people do. It the structure of the US society, the families and craziness freedom that have killed the morality. And without morals and ethics to show the correct direction, the youth find themselves in the pit of hell. They take extreme measure. Guns are just a reliable tool to perform the action.

Still, my point is Guns are not more dangerous than books.

Ideas vs Person

First thing is the Books comes with Ideas. And information. The guns does not.

When you kill a person with gun, you kill that person. The person’s ideas, teachings and messages stays intact. It lives on through the students and disciples.

Marx, Hegel, Plato — all of these people ideas are still alive. They are dead for 100s of years.

Now, if you use the book to educate yourself, you can create the thinking capabilities make arguments to invalidate the ideas. Or even further, you can influence their disciples to abandon their ideologies and pick a new one.

In Hunger Games, Capitol could have killed the Katniss anytime. But they did not. Because they knew killing the idea of freedom is more important than killing the person.

It is only one example. We see thousands of scenarios every day where punching a person seems much easier than arguing with him.

And that’s why, killing a person is easier but killing the ideas are not. But books helps in killing the ideas, making them more deadlier than the guns.

Setting Narratives

Artist never tells the truth. Art tells what the artist has experience. We are watching the tormented reality through the artist lens when we see the arts.

The rule applies to the books too.

The books does not paint the real stories, but an exaggerated or downplayed version of events. Even the non-fiction book are prone to including and excluding the part that the writer wishes.

These personal censorship from the author pins a personal narrative to an objective topic. Which means the reader is now reading some one else’s point of view. It will affect the reader when he will create his own thought on a topic.

Having a first hand experience, and then reading the other person’s first hand experience is two different things. The difference occurring due to the personal context.

The way I experience bullying is different from the way girl does. Reading girl’s pov give me an insight, but it also influence my thinking. Which could also be a poor thing if the writer modifies the situation to set up a fake narrative.

Just Like any Other Media

Every other day we see people pushing social media companies to sensor content. And in my experience they are the same people who does not want to censor the books. Mostly liberals.

Liberals want anti-racist and homophobic content to removed from the internet. But when it comes to book, it is somehow educational.

What is the difference?

Modern writers are the same people who puts random crap on Twitter and Youtube. Many of them does not even have English major or did writing course. They all are about putting one word after the another.

We should treat the books as any other media and should ban them if necessary. Like we do Youtubers and Twitters.

For the Kids

Another thing is who decided what the kids should read and what not?

Certainly not anyone specific group. It should be several groups. And certainly not the government. If we let the government what the kid should read and what should not they, our next generation will grow saying some animals are more equals than other animals.

But again not only the parents. Because great rewards are promised if they make the kids read religious books.

And again not the teachers. Because who are they but the couple of people like other people. They go to bar, they drink, they do mistakes. They are not an authority by any way.

That’s why there must be a group that includes parents and teachers.

That is what US have. But the problem is US people think parents should not get involved and let the authority do whatever with the kid. Which is stupid.

Setting A Signal

Banning the book is also important because there will be a future generation that will ask the questions. They will ask why there were book filed with filth and such wrong ideas. Why there were no one to stop these type of books from reaching to the hand of kids?

To set the signal.. that there was resistance against the rampant freedom of voice. That there were people censoring the thing, taking care of the content that reach to the kids.

Unless there is no stop.

I mean just think about it:

You have sister who is 10 years old. Would you like it if she is reading Fifty Shades of Grey. If yes, you are not a responsible person. And if not, then where would you draw the line and who is allow to draw that line?

What Else?

For now, on the top of my mind, these are few reasons it is okay to ban the books. And banning the book makes sense.

But this is wild world out there where smart people are acting stupidly so they can look smart in the front of stupider people. The so called morals and ethics are important and tested throughout the history.

Until then… that’s it.

If you have anything to add, please leave it in the comments.