Can someone please explain why LISP and LISP inspired langs breed the most insufferable twats?

I mean, just look at this, I'm trying to learn Clojure and happened across this site/slash book: braveclojure.com

Some highlights:

>Chapter 7 - Clojure Alchemy: Reading, Evaluation, and Macros:

>The philosopher’s stone, along with the elixir of life and Viagra, is one of the most well-known specimens of alchemical lore, pursued for its ability to transmute lead into gold. Clojure, however, offers a tool that makes the philosopher’s stone look like a mere trinket: the macro.

> The -> also lets us omit parentheses, which means there’s less visual noise to contend with. This is a syntactic abstraction because it lets you write code in a syntax that’s different from Clojure’s built-in syntax but is preferable for human consumption. Better than lead into gold!!!

>Chapter 10 - Clojure Metaphysics: Atoms, Refs, Vars, and Cuddle Zombies:

>The Three Concurrency Goblins are all spawned from the same pit of evil: shared access to mutable state.

>In fact, Clojure embodies a very clear conception of state that makes it inherently safer for concurrency than most popular programming languages. It’s safe all the way down to its meta-freakin-physics.

And look at this: https://quora.com/Why-are-Lisp-prog...

It reminds me of Python before the data-science craze and its adherents thought IT was God's programming language.