Sure, that seems like a much more reasonable basis for this discussion. There has been very strong consensus at MIT for decades that he's not a decent human be

Sure, that seems like a much more reasonable basis for this discussion. There has been very strong consensus at MIT for decades that he's not a decent human being and he himself tries to take down people who are doing altruistic things but dare to host their volunteer signup form on Google Forms. I genuinely don't know what the argument for reinstating his MIT position is. The internal politics of GNU have been awful for decades too, largely due to RMS, and I know plenty of free software folks (including a few folks formerly associated with FSF - i.e., true believers in the cause that RMS managed to deconvert) who think his leadership is ineffective, harmful, or both. So, if there's a claim that he's a good leader for the FSF and for GNU, that seems like something we can have a direct, factual debate on. "RMS didn't make the statements about Epstein that the media claimed he said, therefore he's a qualified and effective leader of the free software movement" is fallacious. "The media attacked him unfairly, so he needs his old job back to get back at them regardless of his fitness for the job" isn't justice, just revenge.