Comment Re:Laudable, but not without potential consequence (Score 1) 581
In general I agree with this, but (especially in most parts of the US), the majority of people are white, so if you're identifying someone by their race, it's going to be much more likely that you will use the non-white person's skin color as the identifier. Objectively speaking, there's nothing wrong with that. But this doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Calling someone "wheelchair Jason" (which Jason will probably hear over and over and over) can make people (i.e., Jason) think that that's the one characteristic that defines him - people only see him as having a wheelchair, or being black. Sure, those things aren't bad, but white people, and/or able-bodied people get defined by other things, like "funny Jason," or "rich Jason," or "Jason who is allergic to strawberries." It's a minor difference, sure, but words have a huge impact on individual self-worth.
Calling someone "wheelchair Jason" (which Jason will probably hear over and over and over) can make people (i.e., Jason) think that that's the one characteristic that defines him - people only see him as having a wheelchair, or being black. Sure, those things aren't bad, but white people, and/or able-bodied people get defined by other things, like "funny Jason," or "rich Jason," or "Jason who is allergic to strawberries." It's a minor difference, sure, but words have a huge impact on individual self-worth.