It feels like we’re talking past each other a bit, so I’m going to try to clarify my position below but not add anything new. I don’t think the reply above adresses it, but that could well be due to lack of clarity on my part.
Sign of impact
I don’t think the problem with TSM is that there’s non-zero probability mass on negative outcomes. This is, as you point out, true for basically anything.
My issue with TSM is that, for the reasons laid out above, I think the probability mass on negative outcomes is extremely signficant, especially when compared to other good options, for example CATF. This would be enough to make it underperform CATF in expectation even if it had similar upside, though I don’t actually think it does.
Consistency
To make recommendations, one must use gathered evidence and judgment to determine the distribution of impacts, and whether this estimated distribution merits a recommendation...
...This stuff isn’t easy. But the fact that there is some probability mass on negative impact is not disqualifying, nor should it be.
I agree with this. In fact, I still agree with it when the following words are added:
To make recommendations about preferring one organisation over another, one must use gathered evidence and judgment to determine the distributions of impact for each organisation, and whether the estimated distribution of the difference in impact merits a recommendation of one over the other...
...This stuff isn’t easy. But the fact that there is some probability mass on negative impact if we only recommend the organisation which we think is best in expectation is not disqualifying, nor should it be.
I think both the quote from you and the one I’ve added bold text to are true.
Individual chapters of Sunrise
Critics trying to take down Sunrise frequently pull out the most radical quote they can find from one of the local chapters and use it to disqualify the whole organization, but I don’t really think that’s valid.
I pulled that quote to indicate that the decentralised nature of Sunrise means any claims about its work being in any sense atypical of progressive activism more broadly are hard to believe. This is relevant not because one bad quote should discredit an organisation, but because I showed above that climate activism in general is not neglected, and you responded that effective climate activism is not neglected. But both statements can only simultaneously be true if Sunrise’s activism is meaningfully different from progressive activism more broadly, and it doesn’t appear to be.
It feels like we’re talking past each other a bit, so I’m going to try to clarify my position below but not add anything new. I don’t think the reply above adresses it, but that could well be due to lack of clarity on my part.
Sign of impact
I don’t think the problem with TSM is that there’s non-zero probability mass on negative outcomes. This is, as you point out, true for basically anything.
My issue with TSM is that, for the reasons laid out above, I think the probability mass on negative outcomes is extremely signficant, especially when compared to other good options, for example CATF. This would be enough to make it underperform CATF in expectation even if it had similar upside, though I don’t actually think it does.
Consistency
I agree with this. In fact, I still agree with it when the following words are added:
I think both the quote from you and the one I’ve added bold text to are true.
Individual chapters of Sunrise
I pulled that quote to indicate that the decentralised nature of Sunrise means any claims about its work being in any sense atypical of progressive activism more broadly are hard to believe. This is relevant not because one bad quote should discredit an organisation, but because I showed above that climate activism in general is not neglected, and you responded that effective climate activism is not neglected. But both statements can only simultaneously be true if Sunrise’s activism is meaningfully different from progressive activism more broadly, and it doesn’t appear to be.