So you see, I like Scratch. Its community is genuinely fascinating. There are talented programmers, artists, animators, musicians, and all sorts of creative people there. At the same time, the Scratch Team likes to advocate for the "inclusion" of LGBTQ+ people. To be clear, I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with that. One could even argue that it encourages more people to participate, learn skills, and contribute to the community. However, I found a problem with the label. Scratch claims to be "inclusive." The Oxford Dictionary defines inclusive as: > "Deliberately including people, things, ideas, etc. from all sections of society, points of view, etc." Notice the phrase "all sections of society" and "points of view." Now, if we take that definition seriously, then "points of view" would include a huge range of beliefs: conservatism, progressivism, socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism, and plenty of other positions that people may agree or disagree with. Yet the Scratch Team clearly does not include all viewpoints. They actively include LGBTQ+ people and their supporters—which is perfectly consistent with their goals—but they also actively exclude certain viewpoints they consider unacceptable. Homophobic views would be an obvious example, and arguably, 'inclusive' is a pretty label for: "LGBTQ+, its allies and quiet people" Whether those views are right or wrong is not my point. My point is that they are excluded. So now we have an interesting situation. Scratch calls itself "inclusive," yet some viewpoints are welcomed while others are not. In other words, people are excluded in the name of "inclusion." Sounds a little funny when you put it that way. The usual justification is "safety" and "inclusion." Fair enough. But let's not pretend this is some universal inclusion of all people and viewpoints. It is a specific vision of what an acceptable community should look like. That's a completely different claim. At this point, I start wondering whether "inclusion" is really being used as a neutral principle, or whether it is simply a nicer-sounding label for a particular set of progressive values. Again, put my personal opinions aside for a moment. If one group of views is promoted while another is suppressed, calling the process "neutral" starts to sound rather creative. The same issue appears in moderation. Political statements that are not extreme can still trigger warnings or filters. Yet Scratch often presents itself as "neutral." Apparently, everyone must remain "neutral" while certain political and social messages receive official support. Very interesting definition of neutrality. Some people will bring up Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. The argument is that a tolerant society must sometimes be intolerant of intolerance. I understand the reasoning. My issue is that someone still has to decide what counts as "intolerant." Once that authority exists, the system is no longer merely protecting tolerance; it is choosing which values get institutional approval. Therefore, my criticism is not directed at LGBTQ+ people, nor at ordinary Scratch users. My criticism is directed at what I see as a contradiction between the language of universal "inclusion" and the reality of selective exclusion. The Scratch community remains fascinating. My disagreement is with the Scratch Team's habit of presenting a particular ideological vision as though it were simply "inclusion," "neutrality," and "safety." Those words sound nice, but they do a lot more work than people often admit. Thank you very much for reading.
Original version is inside.
