I think it's about the same for pretty much any language in the "statically typed, compiled" camp. You'll see "faster than C" claims for Rust and Go as well, for example.
Meanwhile Rust is genuinely competitive with C performance-wise and thanks to generics and things like more aggressive inlining can actually equal or even beat C without requiring esoteric micro-optimizations. Of course the drawback is that writing Rust code is significantly more complicated and more restrictive.
I feel that you have mis-characterised a whole community, very few of whom care to make Haskell faster than C and overwhelmingly share your view that "C-grade performance is not required".
Further, in the posts I've read of people comparing to C, if anything C is held up as the benchmark as a mark of respect - not as something to cheat against, not to try to say that Haskell is better. Indeed Haskell's FFI out to C is really nice, and demonstrates the pragmatic side of this ivory-tower language :)
This post first embraces its clickbait article and then highlights that even though the Haskell version may be faster on multicore systems (at least for ascii - the unicode version may be incorrect wrt. unicode spaces), but that in practical situations without caching this may not provide any benefit. You're acting as if OP submitted his binary to Apple, *BSD and all the Linux distros with a pull request saying his is better! It's a fun post golfing some Haskell performance issues.
I actually wrote a comment (in 2013, but the page I'm referencing doesn't appear to have changed one bit) where I shared my experience looking at haskell.org's introduction that was filled with FUD regarding C and how Haskell was so much better and faster:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5090808
Maybe if they had actually tried to teach me the language instead of that bad faith "used car salesman" tactic I'd be writing Haskell these days.