>"It will always baffle me that people object to something as innocuous as that. "
This is just basic framing. Every movement wants to cast itself with broad and unobjectionable ideals. The devil is in the details with how you go about making things 'better for everyone' and that's where the real disagreement is.
You did pick the more innocuous part. The opening is the above.
Equity is a word being used to mean equality of outcome. This is viewed as something deeply wrong from a libertarian perspective. The classic example is weighing down a strong person such that his natural strength isn't a true advantage.
It's cutting down the tall poppies, and it's asian student's needing better scores on entrance exams to get into Harvard.
Either way, it's a _very_ left word, and NASA is virtue signaling with this campaign.
CIA adverts promoting left values have been popping up recently. Many view this as a way the CIA wraps themselves in a cloak of protection that is the left siding with them.
The left should be the most critical of secret government operating bodies that do terrible things at home and abroad, but if the CIA can just align itself with them on trivial matters like DEI, then nobody bats an eye when regime changey things happen in Belarus.
>Equity is a word being used to mean equality of outcome.
You state this as a fact when only an extreme minority of people actually want equality of outcome. The key to NASA's statement is the word "available". They aren't talking about guaranteed outcome. They are specifically talking about opportunity. It is an ad advocating for equality of opportunity.
I think what you're saying here is fair. I still don't think you've addressed my other points regarding organizations using progressive language to guard themselves from criticism.
But yes, I'm probably guilty of the knee-jerk emotional reaction to words made to trigger emotion as the article of discussion mentions.
