It just the inevitable conflict between deontological and consequentialist ethics.
Deontological ethics: non-free software is bad, so making a distro that includes non-free software is bad
Consequentialist ethics: non-free software is bad, so reducing the amount of non-free software that someone uses by giving them a mostly-free distro that includes non-free software is good
There's never going to be agreement because they are using completely different frameworks for judging if an action is good or bad.
You don't think that going the "Consequentialist Route" and funding bounties for developing F/OSS alternatives to the non-free components[1] if viable? What's not viable, in my opinion, is the shunning by the purists of everyone who doesn't believe and act like them. Some of us might if we're allowed to get there one step at a time and if they encouraged the transition the F/OSS as a whole would benefit.
> What's not viable, in my opinion, is the shunning by the purists of everyone who doesn't believe and act like them.
That is hardly consequential(ist). The group doesn't exactly wield much power. What influence they have is setting the bar higher so that others can get there one step at a time as you say.
sudo ubuntu-drivers autoinstall works just fine in Ubuntu to install drivers. Also google chrome works, although video playback is not gpu accelerated.
Deontological ethics: non-free software is bad, so making a distro that includes non-free software is bad
Consequentialist ethics: non-free software is bad, so reducing the amount of non-free software that someone uses by giving them a mostly-free distro that includes non-free software is good
There's never going to be agreement because they are using completely different frameworks for judging if an action is good or bad.