He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.
For the rest of us, his ways are extremely impractical, so we compromise. We run a lot of proprietary software, and we don't really think about it.
But RMS thinks about it, and tells us in every single instance exactly what we are giving up as a compromise. And in that regard he, and the FSF, are very useful, and deserves respect.
The world would be a worse place without him, but we also only really need one of him.
70% seems quite high if you mean "free" as rms does.
I didn't say floss isn't prolific, I just think it's unlikely 70% of people here depend on it (almost) entirely
But by creating such polar opposite he gives space for a lot more "lessor" free, more practical solutions and options.
So he plays a very important guardian kind of role; which a lot of people will chalk up to paranoia.
I think what bothers people about Stallman (or at least, what bothers me about him, and extrapolating) is that he takes a moralistic approach. Non free software isn't a non optimal thing to be fixed for well-thought-out reasons X, Y, and Z, it is an Evil, and you are Wrong for perpetuating it.
So, if you consider "putting people in a situation where they have no control over their lives" as bad (I do), then the concept of proprietary software is wrong -- not just the ones that happen to misuse their power.
Heartbleed disagrees. Less likely? Arguable. "Can't happen"? Unequivocally false.
And besides such security benefits are gained by having the source visible, not necessarily "free".
So, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned security, I'm talking about freedom.
Two (non security, as you mentioned, even though it's brought up continually by apologists) examples off the top of my head:
* FileZilla, a GPLed FTP client, had malware added to its installer by Sourceforge at the request of its developers.
* Ubuntu, an operating system composed entirely of free software, started sending search data in its UI to third parties without prior notice.
If you think it's impossible for the developer to take advantage of you because their software is "free", you simply aren't being imaginative enough.
Aside: I don't think that security is a good argument for free software, because it's certainly possible to have secure proprietary software (in theory at least). But even if the software is secure, you can't prove that's the case or fix bugs by yourself or release the fixes to everyone.
I think it means not what you think it means.