La INCLUSIÓN NUNCA ES FORZADA 2: La REVANCHA

Inclusion and Misunderstandings

Clarifying the Concept of Forced Inclusion

• The video addresses misconceptions about forced inclusion, clarifying that criticism of a character's identity does not equate to intolerance. The real issue lies in poor writing rather than the inclusion itself.

• The term "forced inclusion" is deemed a misused argument, often masking hate speech or poorly articulated dissatisfaction with character representation.

Structure of the Discussion

• The discussion will be divided into four parts:

1. Background on the controversy.

2. A deeper explanation of forced inclusion.

3. Responses to criticisms received post-video release.

4. Personal impacts stemming from this experience.

Background on Controversy

• On April 14, 2021, a controversial video titled "Inclusion is Never Forced" was released, which sparked significant backlash and has remained relevant since then.

• The creators aimed to highlight how claims of forced inclusion can serve as excuses for expressing discriminatory views without overtly admitting to prejudice.

Video Creation Insights

• One creator recalls their inclination towards using YouTube for social issues; they both agreed on the title and message promoting empathy towards minority representation in media.

• The video intended to convey that there’s nothing wrong with including minority characters and sought to counter common arguments against such inclusions while promoting acceptance.

Audience Reception and Criticism

• Viewers were encouraged to empathize with issues like racism and gender inequality through better representation in stories, but many reacted negatively, claiming that inclusion was indeed forced.

• Following the video's release, numerous responses emerged disputing its claims, leading to an influx of hateful comments across various platforms.

Engagement Metrics and Viewer Behavior

• Many viewers criticized the title without watching the full content; average retention for similar videos is around seven minutes, but this video only retained viewers for approximately four minutes.

• Only about 27% of viewers watched beyond initial moments; half left within the first thirty seconds after clicking on it.

Impact of Misinterpretation

• Video responses criticizing their stance garnered more views than their original content, indicating that many did not engage directly with their arguments but rather relied on second-hand interpretations.

• An abnormal ratio of comments relative to views suggests impulsive reactions from critics who may have misunderstood or misrepresented their message.

Comparative Analysis

• To illustrate viewer engagement discrepancies further, comparisons are made with other videos having similar view counts but significantly fewer comments—highlighting disproportionate reactions toward this particular topic.

Discussion on Video Engagement and Controversy

Overview of Video Comments and Views

• The video with the most views on the channel is a cheap copy of Gumball, garnering 3.7 million views and 3,700 comments.

• In contrast, a video about inclusion has only 372,000 views but received an astonishing 18,000 comments—six times more than the most viewed video.

Nature of Comments and Community Response

• The high number of comments on the inclusion video reflects significant negativity rather than constructive discussion; it was filled with hate rather than debate.

• Following the video's release in April 2021, negative commentary persisted for months, indicating ongoing community backlash.

Personal Reflections and Direct Engagement

• The creator hosted live streams revisiting the topic to clarify their stance, which were well-received by viewers who understood their perspective better afterward.

• A notable interaction occurred with Drowsy, a critic from YouTube; they engaged in a dialogue that turned into friendship despite initial disagreements.

Impact on Channel Operations

• Due to reputational damage from the controversy surrounding inclusion discussions, there was a noticeable decline in revenue as YouTube became their primary income source.

• As a result of this backlash, they reduced discussions around sensitive topics like diversity and feminism to protect their business interests.

Understanding Inclusion: Perspectives and Misconceptions

Shift in Content Focus

• Despite accusations that they only discuss LGBTQ+ issues post-video controversy, they have significantly decreased coverage on such topics since then due to past experiences with backlash.

Broader Context of Inclusion Discussions

• They acknowledge that many influencers share similar opinions regarding forced inclusion without facing repercussions; however, they underestimated its importance initially.

Clarifying Their Position on Forced Inclusion

• The creators still believe that "forced inclusion" does not exist and aim to explain what this phrase means while encouraging curiosity among viewers about their viewpoint after four years of criticism.

Discrimination Underlying Arguments Against Inclusion

• They argue that claims of forced inclusion often serve as excuses for racist or discriminatory behavior without accountability; some individuals use this argument maliciously while others do so out of ignorance rather than malice.

Types of Individuals Using This Argument

• There are two main groups: those who knowingly hide behind arguments against forced inclusion (often harboring prejudiced views) and those who genuinely do not mind seeing diverse characters but may express concerns based on misunderstanding or lack of exposure to these narratives.

Understanding Inclusion and Discrimination

The Concept of "Forced Inclusion"

• Discussion on how some fans of inclusive media (like Steven Universe and Heart Stopper) criticize live-action adaptations (e.g., Snow White) for perceived forced inclusion, revealing a complex relationship with representation.

• Some individuals use the term "forced inclusion" to express discomfort with poorly written stories or characters rather than as a cover for racism or hate speech. This group may include allies of marginalized communities.

• The speaker reflects on their past usage of the term "forced inclusion," indicating that even progressive individuals can hold this view, highlighting its prevalence among various audiences.

Sensitivity Around Language

• Acknowledgment that members of marginalized communities sometimes express agreement with the idea that inclusion can be forced, complicating discussions about representation and identity.

• Clarification that labeling "forced inclusion" as discriminatory is not an attack on individuals but rather on the expression itself; many who use it do not harbor malicious intent.

Understanding Discrimination

• Emphasis on recognizing that people can hold discriminatory views while still being good individuals; ignorance often plays a role in these attitudes.

• Discussion about how labels like "racist" or "homophobic" are often perceived too harshly, leading to defensiveness instead of constructive dialogue about discrimination's subtler forms.

Everyday Discrimination

• Exploration of how discrimination manifests in everyday life through subtle comments from loved ones, illustrating that harmful beliefs can arise from care rather than malice.

• Examples provided show how misogyny and homophobia can come from protective instincts, such as a father discouraging his daughter from riding motorcycles due to gender stereotypes.

Personal Reflection on Bias

• The speaker shares personal experiences with internalized biases, acknowledging their own prejudices (e.g., fatphobia), which stem from societal conditioning rather than inherent malice.

• Recognition that everyone has been influenced by a biased environment; understanding one's own prejudices is crucial for personal growth and awareness.

Understanding Personal Responsibility in Addressing Discomfort

Acknowledging Personal Biases

• The speaker admits to being fatphobic, recognizing that their discomfort with others' bodies is not the responsibility of those individuals. They emphasize the importance of personal accountability in dealing with such feelings.

• The speaker also acknowledges their own transphobia, expressing discomfort when encountering non-hegemonic trans women. They clarify that this discomfort stems from societal standards of beauty rather than any inherent issue with these individuals.

Taking Responsibility for Discomfort

• The speaker stresses that it is their responsibility to work on their biases and discomfort in therapy, rather than imposing expectations on others regarding how they present themselves.

• They assert that feeling uncomfortable does not justify telling someone how to dress or behave; instead, it highlights a need for self-reflection and growth.

Challenging Forced Inclusion Arguments

• The discussion shifts to the concept of "forced inclusion," which the speaker argues does not exist. They believe it's crucial for individuals who express discriminatory views to be held accountable for their actions.

• The speaker encourages those who are openly racist or discriminatory to acknowledge their beliefs without hiding behind excuses, promoting honesty about one's views as a step towards accountability.

Misunderstanding Inclusion in Media

• The speaker critiques the notion that criticism of characters' representation equates to a problem with inclusion itself. Instead, they argue that issues often lie within character development and writing quality.

• They provide an example involving a poorly written gay character whose sole identity revolves around being gay, arguing this reflects poor storytelling rather than forced inclusion.

Distinguishing Between Quality and Inclusion Issues

• Emphasizing clarity in discussions about media representation, the speaker insists on differentiating between bad writing and genuine issues related to diversity and inclusion.

• They advocate for articulating specific criticisms about character depth rather than using vague terms like "forced inclusion," which can misrepresent true concerns about representation quality.

Visual Representation of Perspectives on Inclusion

• A visual diagram is introduced illustrating various perspectives on media inclusion—from extreme views believing all minority presence ruins stories to those who see no issue with diverse representation at all.

• The majority fall somewhere in between these extremes but often misunderstand discussions around forced inclusion versus well-written characters.

Conclusion: Understanding Viewer Biases

• Ultimately, the speaker emphasizes that if viewers have problems with minority representations, it reflects more on their biases (racism, misogyny, etc.) than on the narratives themselves.

• This conversation aims to clarify misconceptions surrounding media inclusivity while encouraging deeper reflection on personal biases affecting perceptions of storytelling.

Inclusion and Intolerance in Media

The Issue of Forced Inclusion

• The speaker argues that the discomfort with minority characters stems from viewer intolerance rather than the character's identity itself.

• They highlight how both intolerant individuals and the general public misuse the term "forced inclusion," allowing discrimination to be masked under this argument.

• The speaker suggests that instead of claiming forced inclusion, critics should articulate specific grievances, such as poor writing or historical inaccuracies.

Misunderstandings About Criticism

• Over four years, no one has directly criticized their stance on forced inclusion; instead, critiques have often misrepresented their views.

• The speaker emphasizes that many criticisms were based on misunderstandings or agreements with points they never made.

Understanding Inclusion

• A recurring sentiment is that the problem lies not in inclusion itself but in how it is executed.

• Critics differentiate between well-done organic inclusion and poorly executed forced inclusion, which can lead to negative perceptions.

Examples of Forced vs. Organic Inclusion

• While acknowledging that some characters may feel forced (e.g., female or LGBTQ+ characters), they assert that the issue isn't about representation but about execution.

• They clarify that a poorly written scene featuring a minority character can feel forced due to bad scriptwriting rather than the character's identity.

Analyzing Specific Scenes

• Using "Avengers: Endgame" as an example, they agree that certain scenes are indeed forced due to lack of narrative coherence rather than because they feature women.

• Conversely, they discuss a popular scene from "Sonic 3," arguing it is also forced despite its popularity for similar reasons—lack of logical progression within the story.

Conclusion on Perceptions of Inclusion

• The speaker stresses it's absurd to label scenes as forced solely based on character identities; instead, focus should be on narrative quality.

• They challenge viewers to confront whether their discomfort arises from genuine storytelling issues or underlying biases against certain representations.

Inclusion in Media: A Critical Examination

The Nature of Inclusion and Its Perception

• The speaker argues that the scrutiny over inclusion is often more intense for marginalized groups, emphasizing that when it comes to minorities, there is a heightened demand for quality writing and character purpose.

• It is noted that while forced representation is criticized, similar issues are overlooked in other contexts, such as with characters like "fast hedgehogs," indicating a double standard in how inclusion is perceived.

• The speaker contends that the real issue lies not with inclusion itself but rather with intolerance towards diverse representations. They reject the notion that the problem stems from poor execution of inclusion.

Historical Accuracy vs. Fictional Representation

• A common critique arises regarding characters based on historical contexts being portrayed inaccurately; examples include adaptations like "The Little Mermaid" or "Snow White," where race does not align with historical accuracy.

• The argument emphasizes that fictional stories do not need to adhere strictly to historical facts, as their primary goal is storytelling and entertainment rather than serving as accurate historical records.

• The speaker asserts that if historical accuracy were paramount, then many fictional works would be deemed problematic—not just those involving racial changes but also those with broader inaccuracies.

Cultural Representation in Animation

• An example from the animated film "The Road to El Dorado" illustrates how cultural elements can be mixed without facing backlash for historical inaccuracies, questioning why similar leniency isn't afforded when race is involved.

• The speaker expresses enjoyment of seeing diverse cultural representations in animation and suggests that concerns about racial representation may stem from deeper biases rather than genuine concern for historical fidelity.

Addressing Criticism of Character Changes

• When discussing character adaptations (e.g., superheroes), the speaker highlights a prevalent criticism: changing established characters' races leads to accusations of forced inclusion.

• They challenge critics by suggesting they should create original inclusive characters instead of altering existing ones if they find changes unacceptable due to perceived disrespect for original material.

Purism vs. Inclusion

• Critics who label changes as forced often focus on maintaining the essence of original characters; however, this perspective may overlook valid reasons for adaptation beyond mere racial representation.

• Using April O'Neil from "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" as an example, the speaker points out inconsistencies in purist arguments—if one version deviates from another's portrayal (like hair color), it shouldn't automatically be labeled as forced.

Discussion on Character Representation and Inclusion

The Essence of Characters and Racial Dynamics

• The argument for respecting a character's essence often arises only when their race changes, not when they change professions or personalities. This inconsistency highlights underlying biases in discussions about representation.

• Examples like Fred Jones from Scooby-Doo illustrate that character changes (e.g., personality shifts) are rarely criticized as forced, suggesting selective scrutiny based on racial representation.

• Critics who label changes as "forced inclusion" may be using it as a cover for racist attitudes rather than genuinely debating character essence.

Critique of Unidimensional Characters

• A common critique against LGBT characters is that their sole identity revolves around their sexual orientation, leading to unidimensional portrayals.

• Poorly written LGBT characters can indeed be boring; however, the issue lies with writing quality rather than the inclusion of diverse identities.

• If one critiques a gay character for being unidimensional, the same logic should apply to heterosexual characters like Johnny Bravo, whose personality also centers around his sexuality.

Double Standards in Character Evaluation

• The discussion reveals a double standard: while some argue that LGBT characters are forced due to lack of depth, similar criticisms are seldom applied to heterosexual characters.

• The speaker argues that it's absurd to label Johnny Bravo as forced simply because he is heterosexual; similarly, an LGBT character can exist without being deemed forced if well-written.

Broader Implications of Inclusion

• Criticism regarding a character's singular focus often appears disproportionately aimed at LGBT representations compared to other unidimensional characters in media (e.g., Scrat from Ice Age).

• Many beloved characters have simple traits but aren't labeled as forced; this inconsistency suggests bias against certain types of representation rather than genuine concern for character development.

Conclusion on Forced Inclusion Arguments

• Those who claim "forced inclusion" often do so out of discomfort with visible diversity rather than legitimate narrative concerns.

• If viewers find an LGBT representation problematic solely because it exists, then by extension, they should also critique all forms of romantic expression in media equally.

• Ultimately, the debate should focus on whether characters are well-developed and multidimensional rather than merely their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Discussion on Inclusion and Character Quality

The Nature of Inclusion in Storytelling

• The discussion centers around the quality of character creation rather than mere inclusion, suggesting that homophobia among viewers leads to rejection of good stories that feature LGBT characters.

• Critics argue that forced inclusion results in the dismissal of quality narratives, as studios prioritize diversity quotas over storytelling integrity.

• In the past decade, there was a notable trend towards more diverse characters in media, particularly influenced by progressive social movements in developed countries like the U.S.

Corporate Motivations Behind Inclusion

• Companies aimed for a positive public image and increased profits by adopting inclusive practices; thus, their approach to inclusion was not forced but strategically chosen.

• The film industry operates primarily as a business where profitability dictates decisions; trends shift based on market demands (e.g., superhero films vs. video game adaptations).

Changing Trends in Representation

• There is an inconsistency in how stories are valued; for instance, no one claims that video game adaptations are forced despite potential rejections of original narratives.

• A conservative regression is noted in current U.S. media, with companies like Disney reverting to traditional character representations by removing LGBT identities from their narratives.

Implications of Current Changes

• Examples include character transformations such as Kai's transition from a trans girl to a cisgender girl and alterations made to other films like "Intensamente 2" and "Elio," which erase LGBT identities.

• If forced inclusion was previously criticized, similar logic should apply now regarding the removal of diverse characters for heteronormative ones—this reflects corporate greed rather than genuine narrative choices.

Conclusion on Corporate Greed vs. Identity Representation

• The core issue lies not within heterosexuality or inclusion itself but rather within corporate greed driving these decisions; if one views past inclusivity as forced, they must also recognize current shifts toward heteronormativity as similarly problematic.

• Ultimately, both inclusion and exclusion stem from corporate motivations rather than inherent issues with representation itself.