>>2264>Who do we want to reach?1. Either they are coming to us fairly naturally, or they're so firmly in hiding that there is no point in treating them as other than category 3. There are a few exceptions, which could be addressed by focused targeting of associations like VirPed and Don't Act, but they would generally be hard to get through to and the only benefit would be to their own self-image. It's worth it, but small-time stuff. Maybe worth doing to stretch our muscles, but not really useful.
Category 2 divides largely into those who are already pretty much fine with it (and who are, therefore, very low priority. Preaching to the choir and all that.) and into those who are vehemently against. Those who are vehemently against, or so it seems to me, would be even harder to get the attention of than most of group 3. Well, maybe you could get their attention easily, but it wouldn't be the kind of attention that makes them listen to what you say.
3. Seems left as the easiest group to reach other than half of category 1, and it also carries a lot of weight. Not quite as much, individually, as group 2, but vastly larger in numbers.
The unfortunate conclusion is that category 3 must be our major target, daunting though it may be. Maybe something addressed to that central element of category 1 may serve well to build momentum, however.
Separate point of my own:
We'll suck as agents of persuasion if we get overly divided by schism. With such major divisions in our own ranks with regards to what reforms there should be, I propose that we need a central working target of reforms that we pretty much all agree with -- focusing on these most vital and least divisive issues will help us to present a united front and argue a line we all agree on; schism and infighting can come after significant improvements on current conditions have been achieved, not before.