Also the observation of "The trouble with functional programming is functional programmers" is absolutely correct.
This needs to be said more. Way more.
P.S.: You can ask why, and I can answer honestly, without hostility.
From my experience, functional programmers come in two flavors. The ones who constantly nag others by telling them "everything you do is wrong", and "hey, come here, I want to show you something!". Unfortunately, the first camp is way more dominant than others.
Again, from the same article, there's observation "People who care about the craft are rare. Cherish the who cares, meet the rest at where they are". This is very true. The problem is, the people in the first camp can't cater to either group. First group has strong opinions and want a solid (not hostile, solid) discussion about how they can improve and how that tool works, and the second group doesn't care.
Also, every programmer has an understanding of the machine, and they program on top of that abstraction. For me, "C virtual machine", or the modern hardware is very easy to grasp. For every line of code, I can have an educated guess about how my code will run (e.g. how will the branch predictor will behave or got inadvertently poisoned), hence imperative languages and the primitive memory management is easy for me. For others who think more meta, functional paradigm is a natural think to construct in their brains. Not meeting them at where they are is again off-putting.
All in all, nobody wants to be constantly nagged to feel "stupid" about not understanding functional programming or how unelegant imperative is, and most of the functional programmers are doing this, even without knowing it.
Some of my friends who do functional programming are more reasonable people. Who sit down and look at some code or problem say "oh, this looks an interesting problem and interesting solution, can I show you how it's done in functional way", and we can go from there, and go a very long way from there.
I have never picked up Common LISP because of an academic who praised functional programming like it's the second coming of Christ. I still have the first chapter of the LISP book printed on my desk. I'll start it after 15 years, but now I don't have the time I want to spend on it.
Lastly, from an architecture/elegance perspective, I believe a good imperative program in C/C++/Go is somewhere between Bauhaus and Brutalist architecture depending on what domain you're targeting (lower the level, more Brutalism), and I find that naked nature of imperative code directly tapping into the hardware or the kernel efficiently very elegant and well-designed. For the same majority of functional programmers this is ugly and shall be got ridden with a flamethrower. Also, an imperative programming language is no lighter on PLT and mathematics which the same majority finds mouth wateringly elegant.
TL;DR: If the majority of functional programmers can be a bit less arrogant, meet in the middle and learn why we love what we love, we can build better languages, ecosystems, and a better world to live in, but no, functional elegant, imperative bad.
Robert Martin's Talk: "What Killed Smalltalk can Kill Ruby, Too": https://youtu.be/YX3iRjKj7C0 which notes a similar mechanic about Smalltalk.
Have you considered that your position is lazy, and that actually you have the problem?
I mean, most (not all) functional programmers I met (for the last 20 years, no less!) started to praise functional programming by bashing imperative programming languages and never asked me about what I like about programming, and why I was so adamant to stay away from functional paradigm.
When you start selling what you like as an omnipotent silver bullet without listening to what the other party is saying, or by calling the other party lazy and the root of the problem you drive away people from the thing you are selling,
like you're doing right now.
Extra points for you for doing this, even after I have politely said that I have left that beef behind and trying to find the time to learn functional programming, and PLT in depth. Chef's kiss, actually.
No, your position is lazy by asserting that most people who do functional programming are arrogant. This is a nonsensical value judgement. You don't know most functional programmers.
I don't know whether or not you're skilled FP. I don't know you. But as is appropriate, I assumed that you do actually know what you're talking about.
Maybe not "most functional programmers", though. Maybe "the functional programmers who post the most" or "post the most stridently" and therefore "the functional programmers that I encounter the most often in ways that let me know that they are functional programmers".
And "Have you considered that your position is lazy" isn't a reply likely to change hearts and minds. (It is also, itself, a pretty lazy reply, compared to the effort the GP put into their answer.)
Your description of a person who has to put down everyone else in other to raise himself up, is just person with such low self-esteem that it's become toxic. You'll find these people everywhere, it's not exclusive to FP.
I'm personally fairly rigid about implementing business logic as functionally as possible, but I also enjoy game development which is inherently stateful and never without some imperative parts. I do think FP has some advantages over Imperative programming in many instances, but the opposite is also true, and I'd never pretend to be smarter or better than someone like John Carmack, who's made his career almost exclusively in Imperative languages.