I essentially agree with what you're saying, although in most cases, I would argue against the characterization of the tool as "broken". But I think that's semantics.
If this article was titled "Functional programming offers a number of advantages over OOP when dealing with $productive_activity"[1], my response would have been positive.
[1]: It goes without saying that the article would have to live up to the title. Obviously merely re-titling this article in such a way wouldn't be sufficient.
This seems to be the fashion today. You don't write an article saying "In some cases, outlined below, approach Y can be superior to approach X given conditions A, B and C". You write an article saying "X sucks! Here is how stupid it is - if you want to do N with X, you have to write {this horrible code}. Everybody should abandon X immediately, since it is broken beyond repair, and move to Y, where you can do {cool code snippet}. People use X only because they didn't know about Y or are stupid, you now know about Y, so guess what choice you've left?".
If this article was titled "Functional programming offers a number of advantages over OOP when dealing with $productive_activity"[1], my response would have been positive.
[1]: It goes without saying that the article would have to live up to the title. Obviously merely re-titling this article in such a way wouldn't be sufficient.