You're missing the point. Yes, the license is chosen by the author, but if that pushover licensed software becomes favoured over copyleft software, then proprietary software has a leg up as I explained. That's it.

GPL is also not a "viral" license, because that would imply that it seeks out and infects anything it can find. But developers choose which code they use, it doesn't just appear in their own code without permission. So a better analogy would be "spiderplant" license, since you're taking part of a GPL program (a spiderplant), and putting it in your own (where the GPLs influence "grows" to). That is completely the software developers decision and not like a virus at all.

It might not cost you anything personally if a proprietary developer usurps your code, but it does cost overall user freedom and increases proprietary dominance, where copyleft licenses would have done the opposite if your code was worth using. For that reason, I like strong copyleft. But by all means, keep using the license you want to, as long as it's not proprietary I won't judge. This is just my thoughts.

The point of free/open source licenses isn't to remove money from software either, it's perfectly possible to sell libre software. It's about what the recipients of that software have the freedom to do with it, and not giving the developer control over their users. We should serve the community, not betray them.

Lastly, although free alternatives are often technically superior to their closed-source competitors, at the end of the day, if you have a slightly faster program which does nasty spying, locking of functionality, etc, and a slightly slower program which does not, I'd be inclined to say that the slower program should be preferred by virtue that it does not do nasty things to it's users, and that then you won't be supporting such behaviour.