> I find this comment to be incredibly disingenuous, and just plain false.

I wonder if there will be any justification for this remark :-)

> Excluding people would only be done if someone took a permissive license and then re-licensed it to something more closed

Yes, that is the only way they can be distinguished. If nobody ever distributes proprietary software including the permissively-licensed code, then it might as well be copylefted.

> you've entirely made up a malicious assumption about what people do with the software. And you're even assuming people ARE doing something like this with the software.

I think this is your point of departure with reality. This happens constantly! Anyone who ever includes permissively licensed code in a proprietary codebase is denying the users of that codebase from the freedoms the upstream developers gave them. The freedom to do this is the freedom to withhold rights from other people. You can choose not to care about that, if you want. But that's what is happening.