> many of the most effective aid organizations, all of which are absolutely off-the-charts obnoxious about fundraising
This doesn't seem to jive much with what's reported by charity evaluators like GiveWell, or with what kinds of charitable organizations get grants from more traditional but still high-impact philanthropies like the B&MGF.
It's quite plausible that too much emphasis on fund raising among the general public distorts incentives within these charities and makes them less likely to be highly effective on average. If so, we're better off when the job of publicly raising charitable donations is spun off to separate organizations, such as GiveWell or more generally the EA movement itself.
Fundraising expenses are a huge problem with large charities, but it doesn't follow that fundraising annoyingness is a huge problem. It's not a customer service problem with donors; it's a "using too much of proceeds on fundraising" problem.
If an organization believes spending a marginal dollar of money on their programs is the best way to improve the world, then spending $10 to get $11 in donations allows them to spend an extra dollar on it. It's rational and even morally required. (The only potential negative being the extent that winning a contribution crowds out funding from other causes.)
More generally, people overly emphasize low administrative expenses as a sign of quality. You need overhead to effectively administrate and evaluate programs.
I don't want to get tangled up in abstractions here. To a decent first approximation, every large charity well-reviewed by Charity Navigator (or the like) fundraises from past donors aggressively. It would be a red flag if they weren't annoying previous donors. Empirically, the idea of "never giving money to organizations that ask for money" is likely to steer you away from the most effective aid organizations.
jibe. yes, words change and evolve, but I only mention it because to jive has another meaning, to BS somebody.
I agree with your overall point about "I won't give to groups who tell me they need money" is a pretty high bar to set. However, GP's comment is in keeping with something I've come to think, which is organizations will re-form themselves around your donations (I give large amounts because I can afford them) and they'll befriend you, and it beomes a difficult situation to extricate yourself from. I tend to do one-time gifts and then move on.
Or gibe. The problem is jibe has negative connotations, whereas 'to jive with' seems to me to be a metaphor to works, (I assume it's used in the dancing sense?).
I don't know of the meaning of the phrase has changed somewhat, 'to jibe with' suggests a sarcastic undertone to me, but in modern usage, no sarcasm is intended so maybe jive is the correct term for the current usage of the term 'to jX with'
It looks interesting: "jibe" in the pejorative sense is both an (understandable) alternate spelling of "gibe", and also probably shares a root with "gibe" --- both probably stem from a word that means "rough handling", "kick", or "rear up".
This doesn't seem to jive much with what's reported by charity evaluators like GiveWell, or with what kinds of charitable organizations get grants from more traditional but still high-impact philanthropies like the B&MGF.
It's quite plausible that too much emphasis on fund raising among the general public distorts incentives within these charities and makes them less likely to be highly effective on average. If so, we're better off when the job of publicly raising charitable donations is spun off to separate organizations, such as GiveWell or more generally the EA movement itself.