Why not call it "socially-supportive meritocracy" or something like that? Wouldn't that communicate your ideas better than "equality of opportunity", if you don't actually believe in people needing to have equal opportunities?

Again you want to equate the use of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome by saying that if the odds aren't literally equal this can't be called equality. But the popular use just dosen't match this definition, I don't think its useful to spend effort to try and change the meaning of words or phrases to suit one's conclusions about what they ought to mean, even if these are reasonable.

But even if you disagree on the reasonable of such effort. Let me point out that changing just LW usage of terms simply to render them synonyms with another term rather than to increase accuracy seems to be a tendency that just adds to the already rather formidable catch of data that is LWspeak which when not absolutley necessary detracts from the aim of raising the sanity waterline.

From wikipedia:

Equal Opportunity, sometimes known as Equality of opportunity, is a term which has differing definitions and there is no consensus as to the precise meaning.[1] In the classical sense, equality of opportunity is closely aligned with the concept of equality before the law, and ideas of meritocracy.[2]

Yes there is the legitimate dissent about the meaning, yet I think its pretty darn obvious when people use it in the classical sense. Especially considering the context of this discussion.