3 ms·

You’re overthinking it. This is a study to better inform the needs of disabled people in space. You know, for the future. I happen to think that research about

You’re overthinking it. This is a study to better inform the needs of disabled people in space. You know, for the future. I happen to think that research about the types of accommodations needed for people with disabilities is valuable, and the earlier we learn the unknown-unknowns here the better. You seem to think that this is somehow a wokeist ploy which will lower the “quality” of the space program (whatever that’s supposed to mean), so you’re making a bunch of hypothetical points that actually don’t matter and trying to “logic” your way to victory with a bunch of flimsy premises. BTW I hope there are no hard feelings. Sometimes I just like arguing.

CountDrewku 5y ago
>You’re overthinking it. Possibly, but that's sort of how my mind works for better or worse. Your argument is a a good one IF their currents standards are just not good. For example, maybe they have a blanket standard that people who've had panic attacks can't apply or something... >You seem to think that this is somehow a wokeist ploy which will lower the “quality” of the space This is because I can't think of any other good reason to make an announcement like this, other than a PR stunt, which I consider virtue signaling. In the end we'd have to see exactly what criteria they have. The blanket statement that they're allowing people with disabilities in still seems like virtue signaling to me though. I assume they've got legal reasons for not being more descriptive, that way they can still deny entry for various "disabilities".