I think there is too much politics behind fsf. Instead of battling for users they are battling for licenses.
Besides, we already have Open Source as a movement that makes the pragmatic argument for free software, there's no need to water down the FSF.
I personally don't hold their vision and I find their philosophical position flawed. I see tactical use in their licenses when I want to limit certain developer freedoms without having a fully closed source license, but will generally license MIT if creating a genuinely open source piece work.
"The goal of ecopolitics is wonderful. Green energy is a great invention. But the continued insistence on reduced emissions or even a stop to burning fossil fuels in its entire - and also the mission to prevent non-ecological farming (which make food I might want to eat, thank you) - has wasted billions of dollars and fragmented the movement. To conclude, all discussions about climate change should stop and the movement should simply focus on building electric cars and wind farms."
The more people try to bundle what are in fact quite distinct aims into one movement, the greater chance of failure. Not to mention the greater chance of including an aim which is harmful, not helpful. So I'll stand by my thought that adding in the defeating-the-patent-system-or-bust goal was maybe a tad much.
Nobody doubts that politics are complex and divisions common therein; but surely it's also obvious that politic movements can vary in complexity (number of toppings,) too.
One can't always follow Lincoln's first law of strategy: "One war at a time", but it's an excellent rule of thumb, for politics as well as war, and I think it's pretty clear to most of us now that the EFF has wandered much too far from it, with (economically) catastrophic results - namely all those wasted billions, not to mention the limited supply of developer work-years thrown away on mere rewrites. Not every political movement overreaches anything like this badly.
That there are other arguments with a similar structure to mine does not distress me. That other, false axioms plugged into the same structure might produce a false result doesn't - and of course shouldn't - dismay me either. (Which is not to take one side in the example argument you cite. Not here, anyway.)