25 Jun
2015
25 Jun
'15
5:25 p.m.
Please don't use the term "other-abled." It's euphemistic and
patronizing.
Everyone is "other-abled" or "differently abled." I am sure that your
abilities differ from a professional basketball player, a chess
grandmaster, a ballet dancer, or a prolific romance novel author.
Disability is the lack of an ability that most people possess, especially
one that is socially looked upon as necessary for "normal" integration in
society and so requires accommodation in order to participate in daily
activities. "Other-abled" also implies that in losing my mobility, I gained
like, extra points to place elsewhere. I mean, sure, in GURPS it works that
way, but it doesn't in real life.
And uh, yes, hackers with disabilities are an active community and work on
many things both related and unrelated to accessibility? Both with and
without other folks with disabilities? I actually find the idea that it'd
be extra cool to bring a "blind guy and a deaf girl" together to work on a
project rather patronizing. I think it would be extra cool for a blind guy
or a d/Deaf girl to be able to work on whatever project they want in any
hackerspace without feeling impaired or ostracized.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Phil Wolff <pwolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Several responses, not necessarily sequenced or
connected...
Thanks, Ryan, for the quick education on ablism in tech. Cogent while
preserving irk.
Ryan's "What if Google did a hackathon for disabled techies?" sounds like
a great counterproposal. I could see Googlers going for it.
Does the intersection of other-abled people who are also hackers/makers
exist as a community now? If not, perhaps this could be the seed for one.
Otherabled hackers might not necessarily want to hack on ability-related
projects just because of their own differences. The blind guy and deaf girl
hacking a robot-that-shoots-hoops together may be an outcome.
We believe hacking the world is something everyone can and should do. So
blending hackers with non-hackers is part of that knowledge transfer,
consistent with our values.
Goog's proposal fits nicely in the design-thinking model of
designers/engineers working with "the customer" or "the user". In our
space
that practice sounds like privilege and the condescension of *noblesse
oblige.* In their space that sounds like breaking down barriers between
engineering culture and the people who'd actually use what's built; it's
the way they work with many different constituents, overcoming their own
biases and preconceptions.
The individual Googlers I've met are nice people, eager to engage and
learn. It's less useful to talk about The Google Corporation when we'd be
dealing mostly with a small team inside of Google on a limited scale.
Perhaps holding that one little team accountable for all of Google's missed
opportunities would accomplish less than building a trusted relationship
where they participate in our world, listen and learn from it, and embrace
some of our values over time. Like anything else, which path creates the
most options and opportunities for us, in good conscience?
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
--
Currently Reading
<https://www.goodreads.com/user/email_signature_destination/35215676?utm_medium=reading_link&utm_source=email_signature>
[image: Book Cover]
<https://www.goodreads.com/user/email_signature_destination/35215676?utm_medium=cover&utm_source=email_signature>