It's true, it has some really bad parts but you can avoid them.
If I could design the perfect language for myself, it would have the syntax of JavaScript and the portability of JavaScript but it would use Python's strong duck typing approach.
My focus is message-passing, as opposed to instance-passing. Passing around instances can lead to 'spooky action at a distance' if multiple parts of the code hold on to a reference of the same instance, so I avoid it as much as possible.
The main advantage of static typing is that it helps you to safely pass around complex instances, which I happen to avoid doing anyway. So while I don't see static typing as inherently harmful, it offers me diminishing returns as my coding style improves.
In JavaScript land though, TypeScript forces me to add a transpilation step which forces bundling of my code and adds complexity which causes a range of really annoying problems in various situations. As people like DHH (founder of Ruby on Rails) have shown, we have the opportunity to move away from bundling and it yields a lot of benefits... but it's not possible to do with TypeScript in its current form.
It's particularly difficult for me because I actually like the syntax of TypeScript and its concept of interfaces. Interfaces can be consistent with the idea of passing simple objects which serve as structured messages between functions/components; rather than live instances instantiated from a class. I can treat the object as named parameters and not hold on it.