Activist model

An activist model proposes a structure for efficient dissemination of knowledge in the early and developing stages of an activist movement. Roles within this model are seen as complementary as opposed to antagonistic.

Playing positions

Online activism (indeed, any kind of information/awareness-based activism) is a team e-sport drawing upon varying skills and interests. There is a division of labor in this regard, and if properly managed, this enhances the efficiencies of the activist cell:

Back/Foundational/Background

In the early stages of a movement, a large proportion of participants are studious and well-read. Their interest is in the philosophical subjects of relevance to the minority in question, and anonymity allows them to carry on their hobby.

It is very important that background activists comb through authoritative and relevant texts, acting as a conduit between the text and the rest of the movement. Their role is to select information that is important from a strategic point of view and pass it on to strategists and content creators.

Background activists may also be called upon to engage in public-facing work (foreground and frontline) during the early stages of a movement, as they are in natural surplus.

Middle/Strategic/Foreground

Foreground activists are involved in strategic activities such as community-building and are highly active in the creation of activated information resources such as NewgonWiki. Strategic foreground activists select and present information in ways that favor their arguments, and make it accessible to frontline activists who might be unwilling to read or spend lots of time writing.

The early successes of Newgon.com were due to a relatively large number of individuals who took part in foreground activity - contributing a lot to the foundational streamlined knowledge and self-referential framework we use nowadays.

Front/Visibility/Frontline

Frontline activists engage in public-facing activism on social media and in public. They are often impatient, unwilling to read anything other than digested information such as debate guides and highly proficient in trolling and sealioning strategies (finding trends, querying hypocrisy/inconsistency and aggravating the discourse).

A good front activist identifies trends and creates buzz around a keyword such as MAPs, by searching for crossovers with "pedo", "pedophile", etc and arguing against dissonant beliefs and misdefinitions. This high-frequency, provocative approach allows for other, more foundational activists to enter the discussion and provide background/context/argument/sources of their own.

Early on in a movement, there is a lack of frontline activists, meaning that others are called upon to assume their role. The need for frontline activists only increases, as the movement grows and the body of knowledge matures, requiring less labor to maintain it in relation to the size of the entire movement.

Integrative approach

The integrative approach makes use of multiple perspectives (pro-c, anti-contact, academe/mental health), much like the early homosexual movement (homophile, radical gay lib, gay youth). Again, these are seen as complementary. By embracing multiple positions, an activist movement makes itself more accessible to a wider cross-section of society and arguably more plausible/agreeable within the public discourse. Dogmatism is an unrealistic demand to place upon an emerging movement fighting against numerous headwinds coming from different directions.

Decentralization

When dealing with new movements that carry a high risk of infiltration, censorship and legal challenge, a decentralized and unincorporated model should prevail. In this sense, a more centralized information scheme is produced - say, for example the destigmatization approach favored by B4U-Act (a nonprofit since 2003). Another distinct, but not unrelated information scheme is that circulated by Newgon (an informal organization) sporadically since 2007 - itself based upon a distillation of Ipce's academic approach.

Said organizations - however, do not then act as custodians of any subsequent awareness-raising campaigns, and remain active only at the peer-contact level. The day-to-day running of publicity campaigns is decentralized - facilitated via (for example) chat clients hosted on participant's private servers. Should one part of the system fail, communications and activities can be restored by redoubling efforts elsewhere.

Moderate demands do not preclude radical philosophy

Moderate demands (for example, removal of paraphilias from the diagnostic manual, gradual changes to Age of Consent laws) are more realistic, more presentable and not at all incompatible with a radical philosophy.

One classic way of reconciling a radical philosophy with moderate demands is pointing to the iatrogenic harm factors within nuanced reformist pro-c positions. For example, if pressured by a commenter/interviewer to accept or deny that the "abuse of infants" would be part of your platform, one can calmly reply:

"As you know, I have always supported a voluntary emancipation system for youth aged 12 and up, and this would cover a broad range of capacities including finances and personal relationships for example. Any further change would naturally depend upon evidence that emerges after those policies had been implemented. If you were to pressure me, for example as an ethnographer or a missionary documenting erotic play between adults and infants in a "primitive" society where there is no taboo on that kind of thing, then I would certainly not be the person who calls in a western NGO to investigate such behaviors as "crimes". My position would be the same as every known anthropologist or missionary who has documented such behaviors - I would take notes and not interfere or impose my values upon that culture, as this would be causing far more harm than it supposedly addresses."

See also

• Special Interest Group - Some strategic information.
• MAPocalypse - A cultural phenomenon of accelerated "normalization".