What could EA's new name be?

It feels to me as if the punchable thing is more "effective altruist" than "effective altruism".

That is: if you say e.g. "I am interested in Effective Altruism", you're saying that you want to do altruism effectively (or to know how to, whether or not you actually do it, or something like that), and that seems pretty unobjectionable. Whereas if you say "I am an Effective Altruist", you're claiming that you actually are doing altruism effectively, and that's more likely to raise hackles. [EDITED much later to add:] You're also implicitly claiming that other people aren't doing altruism effectively, which is also pretty hackle-raising.

But terms like "aspiring effective altruist" are super-clumsy, and if the movement is called "effective altruism" then it's inevitable that the people in it will start calling themselves "effective altruists", which is indeed what has happened, and while inevitable it's a shame.

None of this is much help for deciding whether a better name is needed, or choosing one if so. Except to suggest: consider explicitly how any given proposal sounds both as a name for the movement and as a term for the people in it.

("Quantified" is less clunky than "quantifiable", but "quantified altruist" doesn't make much sense; "quantifiable altruist" kinda-sorta does but, again, clunky. I don't have a better suggestion.)

Relevant forecasting questions that need to be refined to make them empirically falsifiable:

• Will there be a strong push from current EA leaders/organizations to launch a new set of movements focused on individual high-priority causes?
  • If so...
    • ... will those causes end up attracting more participation than they had under the EA banner?
    • ... how many mainstream press articles will be written accusing EA of attempting a "rebrand" following scandal, accusations of harassement, etc?
      • ... what will the life expectancy and membership size of these movements be under scenarios where such a "rebrand" gets a lot vs. only a little negative press coverage?
    • ... will those cause-specific movements still exist 5 years later?
    • ... will the EA movement shrink, grow, or stay about the same size relative to early 2023?
    • ... will the EA movement refocus on meta-cause-prioritization?
    • ... how much membership/participation overlap will there be between the original EA movement and new cause-specific movements?

[note: I'm not part of any EA organization, for at least some of the reasons I'm over-stating here. ]

I mean, the movement IS fairly self-righteous and punch-able.  It attempts to take credit and support a very wide range of arbitrary dimensions of improvement, from animal rights to low-development-area disease mitigation to AI hand-wringing, but those things are not similar enough to actually combine into a coherent whole.  

And then specific sub-groups attempt to redefine EA to mean their preferred cause, in a motte-and-bailey move to imply they're saving the world and you shouldn't ask inconvenient questions, like actual quantification of near-term results.  In fact, unless you're prepared to go all-in on mosquito nets, I'd highly advise against highlighting measurement of results in your branding. 

EA is currently still the final frontier for every vegan everywhere, for example, including those in professional networks such as government policy. 

EA is the ultimate destination for virtually all vegans in the world right now

I'm not that familiar with the vegan/animal rights community. What do you mean by this, can you elaborate? I thought animal rights was a large movement in its own right, separate from EA?

Reporting on my mental state here: I'm emotionally opposed to the name change; I like "effective altruism". I don't want to do quantifiable good; I want to do effective good. Having x-risk and animal welfare in the same category makes perfect sense to me.

Oh huh, I actually really like Quantifiable Altruism