This can't be overstated. The primary goal of all revolutionary groups that I've studied has been gaining the support of 'the common man.' Inside the revolutionary group itself, things are different and a unified front is pursued to the point of coercion. However, the goal of this front has usually been to gain the public's favor, and then once the public is stands with the group official social change becomes a realistic goal.
Winning over the masses doesn't necessarily benefit from politeness or moderation, however, depending on the circumstances. Take the example of the French Revolution. The moderates had very little appeal among the masses, but instead appealed mainly to the liberal portion of the educated classes, and some of the very left portion of the aristocracy. This was important, because those classes had money and had some power, but it was hardly mass appeal.
The most popular group among the masses was the most extreme and uncouth, the sans-culotte faction that appealed to the poor working classes who wanted to guillotine the king and all the aristocrats and expropriate their estates. Hence the popularity with the masses of the Hébertist magazine Père Duchesne, which was distinguished mainly by its extremely angry tone, radical demands, and for being the first widely printed publication to use something roughly translating to "fuck" in almost every article. A vaguely representative article, entitled "Fuck the Pope": http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/hebert/179...
Now that strategy might not work in all countries and eras, and in this case there doesn't seem to be public anger about patents ready to boil to the surface that anyone could tap into. But I'm not sure there's any inherent link between appeal to the masses and polite centrism.
If he's not interested in converting these people then can I suggest going to a conference full of them might be a waste of his and everyone else's time?
We're debating his ideas. In the off moments we're not arguing about his fashion choices and lack of social decorum.
Who else do you know is so singularly identified with such a well defined principled point of view (whether you agree or disagree)? Paul Grugman, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, George Carlin?
Being associated with an idea doesn't mean that you're doing anything for adoption of the idea.
In the UK David Ike is strongly associated with believing the royal family are lizard people but it's doing nothing to get his views any real traction.
I'd almost argue the opposite. By being so intransigent and operating outside many social norms, I think you could make a case that Stallman damages how his views are percieved.
I kind of like the image of Stallman standing up and blasting away at these legal people offering half-baked ideas for a problem they only barely understand at the 10,000-foot level.
