I generally agree with you. That said I do think the GP has a point w.r.t. Java and OOP. It's somewhat analogous in the sense that Java's main selling point was its ability to overdo OO abstractions.
What I don't agree with the GP is specifically the claims on other languages:
""" Python with immense amounts of spaghetti, C with its hard to control safety, abysmal imperative or OOP code in Typescript ""
These are not sold as advantages for the respective languages. Python doesn't say it's easier for the programmer to write spaghetti. C's unsafe constructs are a known side effect of being closer to the metal (and optimizing for speed at expense of safety). Typescript's selling point is type checking, which is orthogonal to abysmal code.
But FP is just sold as making it easier to make abstractions all the way down. And for many of us FP-skeptics, that's not a selling point, that's a turn off. (And to reiterate my original point - this is the same for Java, OOP and OOP-skeptics)
What I don't agree with the GP is specifically the claims on other languages:
""" Python with immense amounts of spaghetti, C with its hard to control safety, abysmal imperative or OOP code in Typescript ""
These are not sold as advantages for the respective languages. Python doesn't say it's easier for the programmer to write spaghetti. C's unsafe constructs are a known side effect of being closer to the metal (and optimizing for speed at expense of safety). Typescript's selling point is type checking, which is orthogonal to abysmal code.
But FP is just sold as making it easier to make abstractions all the way down. And for many of us FP-skeptics, that's not a selling point, that's a turn off. (And to reiterate my original point - this is the same for Java, OOP and OOP-skeptics)