What you say is certainly true of the Free Software movement, but the GPL is just a license. Ascribing any "attitude" to it is not reasonable.
The GPL is THE license to use if you want your software to be open-source and usable in other open-source products, but not usable in proprietary (read: closed-source) products. If this meets your project goals, then this is perfectly fine. There's nothing more to it.
The LGPL is for when you want to allow your code to be used in proprietary products, but stay open-source and have all modifications made to it also be made open-source. I sort of view this as a best-of-both-worlds license.
If you want your code to be open source and usable without any restriction (including within proprietary products, without requiring them to distribute the source or any modifications), there are a number of permissive licenses to use. The first to come to mind are the MIT/X11 license, and the Boost Public License.
What I do depends on the situation. In general, I prefer the middle ground offered by the LGPL, because all I really want is for my own work and modifications of it to remain open. But right now I'm developing a library to act as a C++ interface for Lua, and since Lua itself is licensed under the MIT/X11 license, I am going with the spirit of that decision and putting my library under the same license.
The point is, all licenses are licenses. Use the one that meets your project vision.