►
From YouTube: A Technologist's Introduction to Epistemic Injustice - Cat Swetel (Verica) and Jabe Bloom (Red Hat)
Description
A Technologist's Introduction to Epistemic Injustice
Cat Swetel (Verica) and Jabe Bloom (Red Hat)
OpenShift Commons Briefing
hosted by Diane Mueller (Red Hat)
June 26 2020
Link to Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1giauoLIFRp0IoZy-Znn08GSFNm2-hu2iR-BcMEW1qz4/edit#slide=id.p
A
Hello,
everybody
and
welcome
to
another
OpenShift
Commons
briefing.
Today,
we're
really
happy
to
have
with
us
cat
sweet
ol,
we're
gonna
talk
and
give
an
introduction
for
technologists
on
a
piston
piston
injustice.
I
always
say
that
slightly
off
I
think
it's
timely.
It's
a
great
opportunity
for
us
to
discuss
some
of
the
things
that
we're
going
on
in
marginalized
communities
and
how
we
can
endeavor
to
correct
some
of
that.
So
I'm
gonna,
let
Kat
introduce
yourself.
J
bloom
is
with
us
norm.
Dilys
is
with
us.
A
B
Thanks
yep
so
I'm
Katz,
littell
I'm,
an
engineering
manager
at
Erica
and
I'm,
going
to
give
you
a
very
brief
introduction
to
epistemic
injustice.
Oh
go
first,
a
quick
disclaimer!
This
is
a
whole
like
field
of
study
in
philosophy
and
I'm,
not
a
philosopher
and
a
different
kind
of
nerd.
So
you
are
very
much
getting
today
an
introduction
from
someone
who's
out
working
in
industry,
not
a
philosopher,
not
an
academic!
Maybe
Jake
will
be
able
to
add
a
different
sort
of
color
after
this.
But
that's
my
disclaimer,
not
a
philosopher
just
cat
all
right.
B
So
what
is
epistemic
injustice,
epistemic
injustice.
This
definition
is
taken
from
kind
of
the
book
on
the
topic,
epidemic
and
justice,
power
and
ethics
of
knowing
by
brando
frikar,
so
that
the
definition
that
I'm
going
to
use
throughout
this
is
when
someone
is
wronged
in
their
capacity
as
a
knower,
so
you're
you're
wronged
in
your
capacity
to
know
things
and
to
kind
of
impart
your
knowledge
to
other
people.
So
that's
the
definition
that
I'm
going
to
be
working
with
and
a
common
example.
B
That's
become
more
and
more
part
of
the
dialog
here
in
the
United
States
at
least
is
gaslighting,
and
this
phrase
comes
from
a
play
and
a
movie
that
are
about
this
couple
and
it
starts
off
with
a
couple
of
moves
into
this
house
and
a
bunch
of
weird
things
start
happening.
The
the
husband
keeps
trying
to
convince
the
life
but
she's
going
nuts,
and
it
turns
out
he's
doing
that
so
that
he
can
go
into
their
own
attic
and
look
through
some
dead
old,
lady's
stuff.
B
There's
some
magical
treasure
or
something
like
that,
and
he
doesn't
want
his
wife
to
know,
and
she
has
her
suspicions
about
what's
going
on,
because
when
he
leaves
for
work
which
is
really
that
he
goes
outside
and
then
climbs
up
the
fire
escape
to
the
Attic.
He
notices
that
all
of
the
lights,
the
gas
lighting
in
her
house
goes
down
as
if
someone
is
turning
on
other
lights,
also
in
the
house.
So
she
thinks
there's
someone
in
the
house
a
thorough.
B
She
hears
noises
and
all
this
stuff,
but
her
husband
is
trying
to
convince
her,
no
you're,
crazy,
you're,
noticing
things
that
are
happening.
All
of
this
stuff-
that's
oh,
that's
gas
lighting.
Basically,
when
someone
is
trying
to
say
that
your
lived
experience,
the
things
that
you
are
observing
about
your
world,
you
know
to
be
true
that
you're,
crazy
and
they're,
not
true,
let's
gas
lighting
and
now
you
know
there's
books
and
podcasts
and
all
of
these
things
about
gas
lighting.
B
So
that's
probably
the
example
of
epistemic
injustice
that
is
most
common
in
in
our
dialogue
today,
so
yeah.
That's
a
common
example
that
many
people
are
probably
familiar
with
broadly
epistemic,
injustice,
kind
of
comes
in
two
buckets
and
all
the
instances
of
epistemic
injustice
we
can
probably
put
them
in
one
or
both
of
these
buckets.
The
first
bucket
is
testimonial
injustice,
and
this
is
when
someone
is
wronged
in
their
capacity
as
a
giver
of
knowledge.
So
it's
something
about.
B
You
prevents
you
from
being
able
to
pass
knowledge
to
someone
else
so
I
like
to
say
there's
winners
and
losers
and
the
credibility
economy.
It's
nothing!
Nothing
about
the
knowledge
that
I'm
trying
to
impart
to
someone
else.
Something
about
me.
My
favorite
example
of
this
that
I've
ever
encountered
in
my
career
and
so
I
go
to
this
fancy
meeting
with
a
lot
of
people
and
like
tailored
blue
suits
and
all
of
this
stuff
and
one
one
participant
walks
in
the
meeting
and
she's
wearing
sneakers
and
blue
jeans.
B
They
had
two
hours
only
with
her
and
they've
wasted,
one
hour
and
55
minutes
and
kinda
got
to
the
end
and
freaked
out,
but
that
is
an
example
of
testimonial
injustice
where
it's,
because
she
was
a
woman
and
a
male-dominated
space,
because
she
wasn't
wearing
the
things
that
they
felt
like
you
should
be
wearing
all
of
those
things.
They
did
not
consider
her
to
be
a
good
source
of
knowledge
and
I
ended
up
not
working
out
very
well.
B
The
kind
of
very
thing
about
testimonial
and
justice
is
that
we
can
do
this
to
ourselves
and
I
catch
myself.
Doing
this
to
me
all
the
time.
I
don't
have
a
very
traditional
technology
background
and
so
I
catch
myself,
seeing
like
maybe
I'm,
not
technical.
Maybe
this
idea
is
dumb
or
whatever
the
case
may
be.
I'm
I'm
degrading
my
own
ability
to
impart
knowledge
to
others.
So
someone
else
can
do
this
to
you
or
you
can
do
this
to
yourself.
B
So
this
is
when
we
have
stories
that
help
us
understand
our
own
experience
and
when
certain
people
or
certain
groups
aren't
able
to
participate
in
creating
those
stories
that
we
use
to
make
sense
of
our
experience.
So
when
that
happens,
we
would
say
that
those
people
are
hermeneutic
lee
marginalize.
B
They
don't
pitch
play
a
role
in
the
way
that
we
generate
collective
meaning
in
the
common
examples
of
this.
One
of
them
would
be
postpartum
depression.
So
we
have
the
this
dominant
narrative
about
what
it
means
to
be
a
mother,
and
you
should
be
really
happy
after
you
have
your
child,
because
this
is
the
most
wonderful
moment
of
your
life
and
all
of
these
things,
and
so
we
have
this
idea
of
what
it
is
to
be
a
mother
of
a
baby
and
then,
when
women
have
feelings
that
are
not
that
they
start
to
question.
B
Like
am
I
even
meant
to
be
a
mother,
because
this,
my
experience
is
not
at
all
matching
what
the
dominant
narrative
is,
but
then,
whether
if
they're
lucky
enough
to
have
a
friend
or
a
doctor
to
say
you,
you
seem
to
be
experiencing
postpartum
depression.
Then
they're
able
to
have
access
to
a
new
narrative
that
helps
them
make
sense
of
their
experience.
B
So
when
we
talk
about
hermeneutic
injustice,
sometimes
we
we
say
things
like
there's
a
moment
of
waking
up
or
things
like
that
when
you
gain
access
to
a
differ
vocabulary
or
a
different
narrative
that
can
help
you
make
sense
of
your
experience.
There
are
fish
on
this
slide,
but
I
like
the
joke.
One
fish
comes
up
to
the
other
fish
and
says:
hey
how's,
the
water.
Today,
another
fish
says
what
the
hell
is
water,
so
we're
we're
swimming
around
in
these
narratives
and
we
we
don't
even
know
that
they
exist.
We
just
know
that.
B
B
That
would
tend
to
indicate
that
there's
some
sort
of
testimonial
injustice
going
on
there
right,
because
hysterical
is
usually
meant
to
say,
because
you
are
a
woman
I'm
not
able
to
trust
the
experience
that
you're
telling
me
about
right
now.
So
there's
lots
of
examples
of
this,
so
those
are
the
things
that
we
were
typically
here.
It's
a
dismissal
based
on
who
that
person
is
something
about
them
and
for
hermeneutical
injustice.
We
hear
things
like
that's
unbelievable,
that's
probably
one
of
my
least
favorite
phrases
of
all
time.
B
That's
unbelievable
I
just
want
to
say
well
believe
it
I
also
felt
like
it
was
unbelievable
when
I
was
living
it.
So
those
types
of
phrases-
they're,
basically
saying
that
is
so
far
outside
of
the
narrative
that
I'm
familiar
with
that
I
can't
wrap
my
head
around
it
yeah
those
types
of
things,
the
other
thing
with
hermeneutical
injustice,
sometimes
he'll
have
a
tendency
to
yourself
work
for
someone
else
to
say
well
in
that
situation.
B
I
would
have,
or
why
didn't
you,
because
you
can't
even
make
sense
of
that
experience
and
so
you're
you're
trying
to
match
it
up
to
some
course
of
action
in
the
narrative
that
makes
sense
for
you,
rather
than
just
accepting
the
experience
or
the
narrative
that
was
lived
by
that
person
and
imparted
to
you.
Those
are
kind
of
the
little
flags
like
oh
I,
hope
I'm,
not
perpetrating
an
epistemic
injustice.
Here
you
can
listen
to
yourself,
saying
those
things
or
listen
to
other
people
saying
those
things
alright.
So
why
the
heck
does
this
matter?
B
But
if
we
are
of
sensitizing
ourselves
to
injustice,
we
can
start
to
notice
those
things
and
and
work
to
correct
them
or
to
make
a
more
generative
world
and
I.
Think
that
seems
like
a
good
thing
that
there
are
folks
out
there
listening
who
are
familiar
with
like
safety,
science,
so
safety
engineering.
But
this
will
probably
be
a
familiar
concept
to
you
right
if
we
see
no
reports
of
any
incidents
or
anything
like
that.
But
that's
usually
not
good
for
safety.
B
Just
so
I
like
this
quote,
and
if
we
are
sensitizing
ourselves
to
injustice,
I
think
that
we
can
make
ourselves
more
resilient
right,
because
if
we
are
sensitizing
ourselves
to
the
fact
that
there
are
lots
of
different
narratives
out
there
and
there's
lots
of
information
out
there,
and
it
could
be
information
that
seems
outside
of
the
realm
of
possibility.
But
we
want
to
listen
to
that,
because
that
could
be
a
good
indicator
of
how
things
could
go
horribly,
wrong
and
I'm.
Sure
all
of
us
have
had
this
experience.
B
Where
you
have
a
feeling,
you
don't
know
why
you
have
it
or
it's
based
on
some
super
weird
experience
that
you
have
and
you
try
to
convey
that
to
other
people
and
they'd
say
what
that
could
never
happen,
and
then
the
thing
happens
right.
What
would
the
world
look
like
if
we
were
open
to
hearing
about
those
intuitions
and
those
stories
from
folks
than
not
just
dismissing
them?
Oh,
that
could
never
happen
instead,
leading
with
curiosity.
What,
if
that
happened?
B
B
This
is
an
awful
idea.
For
example,
there's
been
some
hiring
algorithms
out
there
that
end
up
making
some
really
interesting
selections,
and
probably
if
you
had
a
more
diverse
set
of
viewpoints
and
we're
inviting
divergent
viewpoints
early
in
the
process
that
wouldn't
turn
into
a
huge
PR
nightmare,
so
the
epistemic
injustice
sensitizing
ourselves
to
epistemic
injustice.
That's
can
be
an
important
form
of
risk
mitigation
and
this
one
you
know
I
guess
some
people
might
think
that
it's
like
a
weird
staring
into
my
crystal
ball
type
thing.
B
But
I
disagree
I,
think
that
if
we
are
sensitizing
ourselves
to
the
fact
that
there
are
lots
of
different
narratives
out
there,
we
can
sensitize
ourselves
to
weak
signals.
So
if
you
are
looking
for
how
your
company
or
your
product
could
be
disrupted,
do
you
want
to
ask
the
people
who
are
currently
being
very
well
served
by
the
existing
offering
or
the
existing
system?
Or
would
you
want
to
ask
people
who
are
not
being
well
served
by
the
existing
system?
B
Probably
the
people
who
are
not
being
well
served
by
the
existing
system
are
going
to
give
you
much
better
insight
about
what
could
disrupt
that
existing
system
or
what
weaknesses
it
has
or
what
opportunities
there
are
to
serve
a
greater
market.
So
if
we
want
some
of
those
weak
signals,
we
have
to
go
out
to
the
epistemic
margins
and
be
open
to
hearing
that
experience,
even
though
we
know
it
won't
fit
with
the
concept
that
we
have
of
how
the
world
works.
B
That's
actually
very
good
because
it
shows
us
how
the
world
could
work
either,
how
it
could
work
and
we
hope
it
doesn't
or
how
it
could
work
and
hope
it
does
so
good
way
to
get
weak
signals
and
then
that
there's
this
bread
blooming
as
we
as
the
systems
that
we
work
and
become
more
and
more
complex
and
there's
more
and
more
areas
for
specialization
within
each
specialization.
We
end
up
coming
up
with
our
own
kind
of
vocabulary
and
our
own
narratives
and
it
becomes
really
difficult
to
exchange
narratives
across
the
specializations
and
this
book.
B
The
Challenger
launch
decision
talks
about
that
that,
ahead
of
Challenger
being
launched,
there
were
different,
different
people,
different
groups
who
had
concerns,
but
because
of
all
the
specialization,
it
becomes
really
difficult
to
exchange
concerns
across
groups
and
to
notice
that
there
is
some
sort
of
consistent
beam
across
those
stories.
So
if
we
can
sensitize
ourselves
to
epistemic
injustice
and
even
be
able
to
know
that
that's
going
on
that
some
narratives
are
being
marginalized
and
we
can
start
to
develop
a
sensitivity
to
themes
within
those
narratives.
We
can
work
on
our
skills
of
understanding
there.
B
It
is
being
able
to
exchange
their
ative
across
groups
even
when
those
groups
are
marginalized
and
not
playing
an
active
role
in
creating
the
dominant
narrative.
So
especially
for
us,
that's
technologists
where
we're
all
specializing
and
in
some
small
thing
relatively
right.
It's
it's
now
impossible
to
be
a
true
full
stack
developer,
but
a
friend
whenever
someone
says
that
and
she's
like
great
started,
talking
to
me
about
machine
language
right,
and
so
that's
now
not
possible
and
I'm,
not
saying
it
should
be
I'm
saying.
B
If
we
want
to
successfully
move
forward
with
these
complex
systems,
then
we
need
to
work
on
our
ability
to
exchange
narratives
and
be
open
to
the
experience
of
others
all
right.
So
that's
great!
That's
a
bunch
of
theory.
What
the
heck
are
we
actually
going
to
do
the
first
thing
that
I
think
each
one
of
us
can
do
when
we
go
to
our
place
of
employment
or
whatever
the
case
may
be,
the
communities
that
we're
participating
in.
B
B
Like
yes,
there's
just
lots
of
examples
of
this
again
when
people
are
having
an
intuition
and
they
can't
articulate
the
reasons
that
they're
having
that
intuition
just
explore
it
with
them
rather
than
saying
oh
well,
that
can't
possibly
be
true
where's
your
data,
especially
when
that
person
is
an
expert
because,
as
we
grow
expertise,
sometimes
we
lose
the
ability
to
describe
all
of
the
details
that
cause
us
to
form
these
opinions
and
have
these
intuitions.
So,
instead
of
saying
I
can't
possibly
be
true,
that's
unbelievable!
B
No
one
would
ever
do
that
say
what
would
it
take
for
that
to
be
true
and
lead
with
a
curiosity,
and
then
this
one
is
one
that
I
do
that
I
think
jabe
knows
about.
That
is
super
weird,
but
it's
always
worked
for
me.
So
I
read
this
book
researching
your
own
practice
and
this
guy.
He
says
that
you
should
like
fine
things
to
trigger
you
to
reflect
in
your
actual
environment.
So
anytime,
I
walk
through
a
doorway.
B
I
tried
to
reflect
on
that
conversation
that
I
just
had
to
see
if
I
was
doing
any
of
those
if
I
was
perpetrating
a
testimonial
injustice
or
for
musical
injustice
and
the
nice
thing
about
doorways.
Is
that
usually
not
that
much
time
has
passed
between
the
conversation
and
you
passing
through
a
doorway?
So
it
won't
be
too
socially
weird
to
go
back
to
the
person
and
be
like
you
know
what
I
don't
think
I
was
fully
listening
to
you.
B
So
that's
why
I
do
I'm
gonna
walk
through
the
doorway,
but
I
think
this
all
boils
down.
These
are
all
just
clever
little
things
to
help
us
avoid
just
missing
the
intuition
and
the
lived
experience
of
people,
and
all
of
that
is
so
information
rich
right.
What
happens
in
the
end
of
Gaslight
or
angel
Street
or
whatever
version
you're
familiar
with
that's
spoiler
alert.
Of
course,
this
woman.
She
thinks
she's
going
crazy,
but
she
just
keeps
having
these
experiences.
The
lights
are
going
down.
She
hears
noise
on
the
attic
and
her
husband
swears.
B
There's
nothing
up.
There
don't
worry
about
it.
Well,
she
finally
encounters
someone
who
says:
look
your
husband
is
super
weird.
Is
he
what
is
he
up
to?
And
that
gives
her
the
opening
to
say
no,
what
he
is
weird,
listen
all
this
stuff
and
that
person
says
I.
Believe
you,
let's
investigate
this
together
and
I
hope
that
each
one
of
us
were
so
privileged
working
in
technology.
I
hope
that
we
can
go
back
to
our
work
in
our
communities
and
be
that
person
from
time
to
time.
B
Just
saying
to
someone
I
believe
you
I
want
to
hear
more
about
it.
That
I
think
we
just
changed
the
world
of
each
one
of
us
was
leading
with
that
and
and
leading
with
I.
Believe
you
what
would
it
take
for
that
to
be
true
and
that
type
of
confidence
and
curiosity,
rather
than
shutting
down
all
of
these
conversations
and
further
marginalizing
important
groups,
so
back
type
semiconductors,
here's
a
bunch
of
horses
and
all
that
jazz
and
think
that's
about
it.
That's
the
little
tiny
introduction
that
some
we
can
justice
well.
A
This
this
is
really
it's
interesting.
There's
a
one
thing
that
really
struck
me
was
the
conversation
about
like
workplace
safety.
That
one
metaphor,
you
are
using
how
many
times
I've
gone
into
like
a
factory
or
some
place,
I
used
to
do
manufacturing,
automation,
software
and
you'd
see
these
big
signs.
You
know
300
days
without
an
accident
walking
by
paper,
processing,
manufacturing,
plant
software,
and
you
see
these
huge
vats
and
crazy
things
there.
A
A
C
C
But
what
a
ways
to
say
it
is
it's
like
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
would
talk
about
like
diversity
as
just
measuring
how
many
people,
how
many
other
people
are
present
in
the
room
and
then
maybe
even
people
would
say:
okay,
no,
no,
that's
not
good.
What
measure
of
diversity,
how
many
people
are
speaking?
C
Who
are
people
of
color
or
marginalized
in
some
other
way
and
then
and
then
epistemic
justice
says
no?
No,
that's
not
it
because
epistemic
justice
says
who's
being
heard
and
and
what
way
is
the
system
prevent
those
people
from
being
heard?
And
so
really
it
puts
the
onus
on
this
change
not
from
the
speaker
to
speak
to
power,
but
from
those
with
power
to
make
room
for
those
other
people
to
be
heard,
and
that's
a
it's
a
it's
a
different
way
of
thinking
about
how
knowledge
is
marginalized,
and
you
know
so.
C
There's
there's
also
two
ways
that
this
plays
out
in
longer
frames
right,
long,
long
time
frames,
including
the
Western
tradition
and
part
of
it,
is
like.
If
you
can't
write
in
English,
where
you
don't
write
in
English,
you
can't
publish
in
academic
journals
with
high
credentials,
but
you
can't
do
it.
They
want
you
to
publish
in
English.
C
Like
the
colonial
theory
around
the
problems
of
who
gets
to
be
heard
and
in
what
forms
are
they
heard
right
so
I
think
that's
part
of
the
question
right
part
of
the
question
when,
when,
when
you
think
about
epistemic
injustice
is
who
is
centered
in
this
in
in
this
frame
and
the
the
weird
Rhys
entering
is
to
say
you
know
it's
not
the
speakers
I
mean
in
in,
in
the
exception
of
where
the
speaker
can
do
these
things
to
themselves.
It's
not
the
speaker's
problem
to
solve.
It
is
other
people
who
will
make
that
possible.
B
I
think,
even
when
it
is
the
the
speaker
doing
that
to
themselves
so
perpetrating
and
up
stomach
injustice
against
themselves,
I
think
there's
still.
The
onus
is
kind
of
on
the
folks
from
like
living
in
the
dominant
narrative
to
invite
other
narratives
right
like
that's.
Why
I
think
examples
like
women
suffering
from
postpartum,
depression
or
children
who
are
victims
of
abuse
or
those
types
of
things
like
we
can't
expect
those
folks
to
advocate
on
their
own
behalf.
B
C
And
I
also
think,
like
I,
think
there's
a
weird
subtlety
to
that,
like
it's
something
that
I've
talked
with
count
about
a
bunch
of
times,
I
think,
which
is
there's
a
difference
between
integrating
these
narratives
into
the
into
the
into
the
dominant
narrative
and
saying
like.
Oh,
we
need
to
have
like
a
better
female
character
in
the
dominant
narrative
of
the
world.
C
We
don't
need
to
integrate
these
things.
We
just
need
to
make
space
for
them
to
be
believable
like
I,
said,
to
cut
a
bunch
times
like
Kat
would
go
into
rooms
with
me
when
she
worked
with
me
that
she'd
come
out,
and
she
would
tell
me
things
and
I'd
be
like
wait.
Oh,
but
I
wouldn't
have
seen
those
things,
but
also
I
didn't
need
to
become
cat.
I
had
cat
I
could
I
could
observe
those
things
with
me
and
we
could
discuss
them
later.
She
could
have
her
own
experience.
C
A
I
think
there's
an
interesting
thing
to
bring
it
back
a
little
bit
to
technology.
There's
a
conversation
we
often
have
in
open-source
communities
and
at
Red,
Hat
and
other
places
that,
in
order
for
innovation
to
happen,
you
need
to
have
lots
of
different
stories.
Lots
of
different
feedback
and
that
and
and
technology
tends
to
be
very
homogeneous
anyways.
A
And
so
it's
a
tease
out.
It's
it's
it's
part
of.
If
you,
the
innovation,
doesn't
happen,
if
you
don't
have
lots
of
these
different
narratives
and
perspectives
and
people
seeing
the
weak
signals
and
bringing
them
to
the
attention
of
you
know
the
community,
that's
working
on
the
project
together,
whether
it's
a
product
or
a
project
or
an
technology.
C
A
Of
the
things
that
I'm
very
honored
about
is
giving
away
the
podium
to
make
other
you
know.
So
the
the
I
have
a
lot
of
privilege.
I
have
this
channel.
That's
open
shift.
Commons
I
have
been
in
in
in
the
industry
for
a
whole
long
time
over
30
years,
so,
like
I
I,
think
it's
my
role
now
to
give
away
the
podium,
so
those
narratives
are
heard
as
well
as
the
other
thing
early
on
in
in
my
career,
I
found
it
really
important
to
be
out
to
always
be
out.
A
I
was
you
know,
30
years
ago
it
was
a
difficult
thing,
but
what
the
thing
that
sustained
me
in
in
whatever
happened
along
the
way,
was
that
if
you
don't
see
yourself
in
the
room,
you
don't
think
you
belong
there.
So
there's
there's
a
lot
of
little
pieces
of
things
that
we
can
do
when
we
come
with
all
the
white
middle-class
privilege
that
I
come
with
that
I
can
be
safe
to
do
that.
A
So
that's
really
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
this
having
these
kinds
of
conversations,
because
even
the
vocabulary
that
cat
and
jab
you
use
is
you
have
you
know:
jay-bez
is
working
on
a
PhD
or
has
a
PhD.
Is
the
privilege
to
get
that
PhD
to
be
able
to
say
pista,
anyways
I
can't
say
it,
but
you
know
all
of
those
the
words
you
talk
about
English
as
a
language
that
we
expect
to
do.
A
It's
also
the
vocabulary,
and
so
when
we
come
with
our
privilege,
we
people
may
not
have
had
the
privilege
of
having
the
education
to
understand
those
words.
So
one
of
the
reasons
I'm
having
cat
here
is
so
that
we
can
tease
it
out
and
share
those
those
stories
and
I
think
that's
pretty
interesting
aspect
of
it.
C
I
mean
I
think,
like
some.
Some
very
recent
events
are
useful
to
reflect
on
around
language
right
now,
like
github,
changing
master
master
slave
repository
naming
right
so
like,
but
if
you
think
about
the
argument
not-not-not
whether
they
should
have
done
it
or
not
like
just
what
was
the
argument
well
part
of
the
argument
was
that's
hurtful
and
some
people
argued
like.
Why
is
that
hurtful?
I,
don't
get
it
that
shouldn't
be
hurtful,
that's
not
what
it
means.
That's
not
what
it
meant.
It's
like
that!
C
This
is
how
it
feels
to
have
someone
talk
in
this
language
right,
the
Robocop
argument
that
went
on
in
the
open-source
community
for
48
hours,
where
people
were
screaming
at
each
other
about
whether
or
not
having
something
named
after
Robocop
was
during
this
particular
time
was
an
appropriate
thing
to
have
and
and
the
same
types
of
language
issues
of
who
gets
to
control
the
language
and
who
gets
to
say
how
people
should
feel
about
that
language
being
used.
These
are
some
of
the
things
that
I
think
you
know
as
a
community.
C
We
have
a
hard
time
with
it,
and
part
of
it
is
because
we
spend
most
of
our
time
trying
to
be
really
really
rational
and
logical,
and
some
of
these
things
are
not
rational,
logical
problems.
They
are
that
hurts
people
and
people
don't
want
to
be
hurt
by
those
words
problems
and
that
that's
a
different,
different
thing
and
it
requires
a
set
of
beliefs
that
you
can't
experience.
You
know,
I
can't
experience,
postpartum
depression,
I
have
no
clue
what
that's
about,
but
I
can
believe.
C
B
It
when
people
hide
behind
rationality,
Jade
gnosis
I
feel
like
he
just
said
that
word
to
get
me
started,
I
just
hate
it
I
truly
hate
it.
It
is
completely
irrational
to
say
that
you
are
so
upset
that
you
can't
rename
master
to
mean
like
a
rational
human
being
who's,
truly
just
oriented
around
outcomes.
B
How
are
you
going
to
get
more
outcomes
well
by
being
having
access
to
the
best
people
and
in
order
to
find
the
best
people
you
have
to
find
all
of
the
people
and
then
find
out
which
ones
are
right
for
this
specific?
Whatever
we're
doing
so,
a
rational
thing
would
say
like
we,
we
want
to
have
access
to
all
of
the
talent
and
find
which
talent
is
right
for
this
purpose.
You
can't
do
that
if
you
are
marginalizing
people
that
is
irrational,
so
I
just
I
have
such
a
huge
problem.
B
It's
never
people
who
are
being
marginalized.
You
are
like,
oh,
but
I
have
to
be
rational
in
this
situation.
No
I'm,
so
sick
of
it
and
I'm
sick
of
the
rationality.
Prosperity
gospel
like
if
I'm
rational
enough,
then
then
rationality
will
come
down
from
on
high
and
bless
me
with
riches
like
that
is
utter
and
complete
horse.
Hooey
yeah.
D
A
I
think
a
lot
of
the
best
innovations
come
from
irrational
irrationally,
accepting
a
weak
signal
as
something
that
we
should
pay
attention
to.
No
I
get.
You
know
we
talk
about
gut
feelings
or
some
someone
pipes
in,
and
this
happens
like
we
had
an
okay.
Do
you
working
group
meeting
the
other
day
and
someone
piped
in
with
you?
A
Whoever
takes
whoever
listens
to
that
weak
signal
who
ever
look
in
and
then
that's
we're
giving
away
the
podium
is
important
is
like
oh
I
heard
a
weak
signal
here,
have
a
podium,
let's
amplify
that
somewhere
and
make
that
louder
and
I.
Think
there
are
things
that
we
can
do
in
our
open
source
communities
in
our
technology
communities
in
our
business
meetings,
where
we
have
to
wear
those
suits
or
not
I've
been
that
person
t-shirt
and
the
hoodie
walking
into
a
meeting
going.
A
E
Was
my
background?
Is
I've
been
a
disability
advocate
since
1970
and
there's
the
concept
in
the
last
20
years
has
been?
You
have
stigma
on
one
side
and
you
have
lived
experience
on
the
other
and
the
advocacy
effort
has
been
to
privilege
that
experience
more
in
the
various
communities
where
that
becomes
a
real
issue
and
stigmas
ice
struck.
Me
is
a
terrible
word
to
describe
the
other
pole
of
that,
because
it's
automatically
and
forever
devaluing
and.
B
C
That
you
know
I
I'm,
I'm
Dyslexic
or
in
like
20
different
ways.
I
have
like
a
rap
sheet
of
diagnoses
that
are
quite
long
and
when
I
first
I
was
like
10
when
I
got
diagnosed
and
they
basically
like
the
basic
that
you
take
away
explanation
that
I
always
remembered
was
essentially
your
brain
is
not
wired
correctly
to
the
world.
You
don't
hear
things
correctly.
You
don't
say
things
correct.
You
know,
read
things
correctly,
can't
write
quickly
like
play.
C
This
like
picture
of
like
I,
have
a
brain,
a
box
and
all
the
wires
were
wrong
and
stuff
like
that
and
I
spent
a
long
time.
You
know
I'm
I,
think
a
relatively
high
functioning
nor
the
first
person,
but
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
grappling
with
that
sense
that
maybe
I'd
don't
experience
the
world
the
way
everybody
else
does
and
how
weird
is
that?
And
things
like
that
which
partly
why
I
like
philosophy?
But
there
used
to
be
like
the
kind
of
Microsoft,
not
the
Apple
ad,
think
differently,
I
think
yeah.
You
say
that.
E
Since
there
was
no
one
to
tell
you
anything
except
that
you're
wrong,
you're
incorrect,
it's
the
things
that
you
think
you
can't
trust
the
things
that
mean
something
to
you
don't
actually
mean
anything.
Those
are
all
very
common
across
the
disability,
community
and
and
I.
Think
I
was
a
special
education
advocate
in
the
80s
and
I
got
that
every
single
time
I
represented
a
student
in
a
family
and
an
individual
education
plan.
I
got
that
message
that
there's
this
kid
that
screwed
up
and
we're
gonna
fix
up
very
behaviors,
dangerous.
B
D
D
But
these
infrastructures
also
exist
everywhere
and
I
think
that
looking
at
the
the
infrastructures
that
helped
build
this
injustice
as
an
important
part
of
this,
just
like
the
diagnosis,
this
exists
on
every
level.
This
morning,
I
was
talking
to
someone
about
corporate
feedback
right
when
you
get
your
annual
review
and
you
get
it
and
a
friend
of
mine,
shared
hers
with
me
and
I
was
looking
at
I
said.
Well,
they
never
say
that
to
a
man.
Oh
they
never
said
that
to
a
man.
Oh
my
god.
D
They
never
say
that
to
a
man,
they
wouldn't
say
that's
a
man,
and
so
then
we
said
well.
What
is
the
so?
This
goes
into
your
this
goes
into
this
huge
repository
of
knowledge,
so
I
said
well.
What
is
the
process
by
which
you
challenge
this
feedback
and
she
said:
well,
you
can
either
accept
or
reject
it.
I
said,
and
then
what
happened?
Nothing.
D
So
there
is
a
place
within
this
corporation
where
people
write
things
down
about
you.
That
will
be
part
of
an
ongoing
database
of
created
knowledge
that
there
is.
There
is
no
recourse
tip
4
and,
in
addition,
when
you
challenge
these
things
and
say
well,
we
have
to
do
this
differently.
It's
like
yes,
but
what
about
all
those
other
people
that
are
already
in
the
system?
And
we
said
that
stuff
about
them
and
we
still
have
it
and
it's
like
there's.
D
A
There
needs
to
be
I'm
sure
somebody
in
academia
has
come
up
with
a
word
for
it
that
I
just
don't
know,
but
it's
this
how
we
hold
ourselves
back
from
speaking
to
power
because
we're
afraid
inside
of
a
corporation
that
we'll
lose
our
jobs.
You
know
if
we
say
you
know
this
is
happening,
I
see
it
or
you
know,
I
need
a
seat
at
the
table
or
I'd
like
to
you
know.
Do
this
in
order
to
keep
the
job
that
feeds
the
family
that
puts
the
roof
over
the
house.
A
We
don't
say
these
things,
and
even
people
with
privilege,
don't
say
these
things
and
that
needs
to
stop
or
the
spaces
need
to
be
saver,
I,
think
inside
of
companies
and
inside
of
our
open-source
communities
and
communities
at
large,
and
that's
that
that's
a
difficult
thing
that
I
think
we
all
struggle
with
and
acknowledging
that,
like
the
postpartum
depression
that
people
that
carry
around
it's
like
the
fear
factor
of
losing
your
job.
If
you
do
speak
up,
but.
A
D
Know
they
create
these
structures
where
it's
like?
Oh
yeah,
yeah,
you
can
say
whatever
you
want.
You
know
this
is
great
yeah
like
have
the
podium,
but
then
they
figure
out
a
way
to
co-op
that
and
defang
it
before
it
has
any
impact
I
mean
if
they're,
smart
or
if
they're,
evil
or
both-
and
you
know,
they're
because
of
the
you
know
talking
about
things
like
the
diagnosis
you
know
this
is
this.
Is
that
whole?
D
D
But
if
we
try
to
discount
that
it's
like
well
we're
not
being
fair
to
the
people
who
lived
inside
that
narrative,
and
so
it's
very
and
and
because,
though,
the
people
that
did
live
with
inside
that
narrative
still
hold
an
inordinate
amount
of
power
in
determining
what
the
narrative
is.
We
can't
go
forward
with
it.
So
it's
an
interesting
problem
and
the
co-opting
ND
hanging
of
criticism
is
one
of
the
things
I'm
sort
of
most
interested
in
in
all
of
this
and
Gabe.
If
you
would
make
Kat
mad
again,
I'd
really
like
that
I.
C
Had
some
thoughts
really
quickly
a
cat
and
I
used
to
work
a
lot
on
what
we
called
what's
called
a
lie,
ship
and
like
in
particular
cat
worked
with
me
to
help
me
understand
how
to
be
a
better
Ally,
which,
frankly,
is
like
some
of
the
most
difficult
work.
I've
ever
had
to
do
is
to
think
through
a
lot
of
that
stuff,
primarily
because
a
lot
of
the
work
that
Kat
and
I
were
working
on,
where
it
was
around
kind
of
sexism
and
sexual
assault
stuff.
C
That
I
didn't
have
experience
with
and
didn't
really
want
to
have
a
lot
of
experiences
with.
It
seemed
really
painful
and
I,
don't
like
experiencing
other
people's
pain,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
really
end
up
with
as
a
problem
in
there
is
when
you
are
trying
to
change
a
system,
and
you
have
a
marginalized
person
who
comes
to
you
and
says
something
to
the
extent
of
I'm.
C
Having
this
experience
a
lot
like
a
lot
of
you
know,
the
white
knight
version
of
that
is
I'm
gonna
go
fix
it
for
you,
and
that
is
just
another
form
of
removing
agency
from
that
person.
Like
it's,
actually,
the
the
first
step
of
being
good
Ally
is
sitting
down
and
going
well.
What
do
you
want
to
have
happen
right
now,
because
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
you
are
in
control
of
your
own
experience
with
this
right
now.
C
Experience
from
it
was
a
particularly
difficult
experience
for
me
because
having
that
conversation
with
Kat
and
with
other
people
resulted
in
a
lot
of
explanation
of
like
I,
I'm
afraid
of
challenging
the
system,
because
I
will
be
remar,
jinnah
lized
or
over
marginalized,
for
having
challenged
the
system
for
actually
pushing
on
the
system,
it
will
push
back
against
me
even
harder.
So
I
I'm
not
sure
how
to
negotiate
this.
What
should
we?
What
should
we
do
about
how
to
do?
How
to
work
through
that
and
I've?
C
Been
I
just
have
been
really
honored
to
watch
Kat
and
negotiate
a
lot
of
those
issues
and
do
amazing
work
inside
of
a
lot
of
communities
to
help
that
get
better
for
a
lot
of
people
I
think,
but
that,
like
challenging
aspect
in
particular,
I
think
has
something
to
do
with
the
fact
that,
like
the
dominant,
you
know,
especially
the
dominant
male
narrative
rests
on
being
right,
and
so
the
relationship
to
this
epistemic
justice
thing
is
the
minute.
You
can
find
a
reason
to
say
that
the
other
side
is
wrong.
C
If
you
find
a
nick
in
the
armor,
you
go
after
the
nick
in
the
armor
and
you
mari
marginalize
that
person
as
much
as
possible
as
quickly
as
possible,
so
that
ends
up
being
like
you're
too
emotional,
about
this
stuff.
It
didn't
really
happen.
How
can
you
prove
that
these
things
happen?
They
didn't
do
anything
to
you.
Yet
all
these
types
of
conversations
that
I
think
become
really
difficult
for
people
and
and
I.
Think
that
that
is
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
to
like
moving
forward
is
really
understanding
either
in
ethics.
C
C
If
you
care
about
communities-
and
you
want
to
embrace
ethics
that
are
based
in
care
and
human
centered
communities,
then
you
would
not.
You
would
not
always
try
to
maximize
your
own
personal
outcomes.
You
would
try
to
maximize
the
likelihood
that
the
community
would
become
a
caring
supporting
system
that
made
space
for
others
to
exist.
The
way
that
they
would
like
to
be
in
the
world
and
you
wouldn't
care
whether
it
was
rational,
the
way
they
were
being
to
you.
That's
not
your
problem,
that's
their
problem.
A
A
B
B
So
that's
an
extractive
mindset
to
be
in
right
that,
if
I
have
something
that
means
you
don't
have
it
right,
there's
just
one
pot
of
things
that
we
get
to
extract,
but
the
rest
of
us
can
be
can
know
the
truth
that
there
are
so
few
things
that
are
actually
like
that
that
are
legitimately
extractive
paradigms.
So
what
we
can
do,
those
of
us
who
are
marginalized
in
different
ways.
What
we
can
do
is
realize
that
there
are
far
more
far
more
of
the
situations
that
we
encounter
are
lend
themselves
to
a
generative
paradigm.
B
We're
just
because
you
have
something
doesn't
mean
that
I
don't
get
to
get
it.
We
can
both
have
something:
there's
no
we're
in
the
technology
space
right
like
there's
not
in
limit
on
information.
There's
not
a
limit
on
today.
Right,
you
can.
Potentially,
everyone
has
whatever
right
so
we're
not
dealing
with
physical
goods
in
so
many
of
these
situations.
B
We're
dealing
with
things
like
like
oases
in
our
heads
right
and
so
all
of
those
things
can
potentially
be
generative,
and
so
the
way
that
we
can
get
power
out
on
the
margins,
which
I
don't
think,
is
a
bad
thing.
I
think
you
should
have
power.
Is
we
exploit
that
weakness
that
there
are
people
the
people
who
are
privileged
in
so
many
of
these
narratives
they
come
in
and
they
believe
that
they're
in
they're
entering
that
all
paradigms
are
extracted?
B
What
we,
how
we
can
gain
power
is
to
realize
that
many
of
them
have
the
possibility
to
be
generative,
but
we
can
just
make
the
pie
bigger
and
if
you
lead
with
AI,
it
becomes
so
much
easier
to
build
your
own
personal
power.
When
you
realize
that
things
aren't
limited,
it's
not
a
pie,
we
can
just
make
more
and
so
I
hope,
all
of
us
folks,
through
our
march
lights,
in
different
situations,
we
can
realize
not
every
paradigm,
not
everything
has
to
be
extracted.
A
Think,
for
me,
the
promise
of
open
source
and
the
promise
of
technology
is
is,
is
that
generative
power
of
open
source
and
part
of
the
reason
we
you
know
I
work
in
community
building
and
community
efforts
is,
is
that
it
is
it's
not
extractive,
we
put
the
goods
out
there.
People
share
the
technologies,
we
extend
it.
We
we
fix
other
people's
bugs,
but
I
think
the
trap
of
that
myth
is
something
we
have
to
watch
for
as
well,
because
the
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
great
things
out
there
teaching
people
to
code
sharing.
A
You
know
that
empower
marginalize
can
and
think
we
have
to
do
so.
Much
more
of
that,
because
you
know
there
are
so
many
more
conversations
we
could
have
about
the
myth
of
meritocracy
and
who
has
access
to
technology
and
Internet,
and
you
know
even
Wi-Fi.
You
know
stuff
you
basic
things
that
are
missing
for
people,
so
there's
so
much
more.
D
A
A
I
gave
a
talk
a
little
while
ago
about
understanding
in
these
multiple
communities
that
we
all
work
in
in
technology.
It's
impossible
now
to
know
everything
so
I
think
the
other
thing
cat
that
you
touched
on
these
about
the
complexity
and
the
specialized
knowledge.
We
need
to
be
successful
in
these
communities
and
in
these
technology
spaces.
How
do
we
manage
the
barriers
that
keep
us
from
those
specialized
technologies?
A
How
do
we
open
up
those
things
so
that
we're
sharing
those
in
more
I
don't
even
know
if
I
should
use
democratic
ways
or
more
transparent
and
open
ways?
I
think
there's
so
much
work
to
be
done
and
I
really
appreciate
cat
and
jabe
and
norm
and
Barb
and
everyone
else
who's.
Listening
for
for
listening
to
this
conversation
because
for
technologists,
it
is
an
important
conversation
to
be
continued
to
have
I
hope
that
you
guys
will
come
back
and
have
it
again
soon
and
Barbara
and
norm.
A
We
can
get
you
on
and
and
talk
about
this
because
I
think
Fridays,
I,
really
love
ending
the
week
with
a
great
conversation
and
a
list
of
books.
That
Kat
has
given
me
too
now
go
out
and
order
and
read
so
thank
you
again
and
everybody
for
participating,
jabe
and
Kat
norm
and
Barb
and
everybody
else.
Thank.