I'm not sure anyone will argue that seriously.
That's an amazing assertion for which I would like to see proof.
It's probably not true for Perl 5's concurrency and parallelism features, such as they are. (You get fork() and POSIX-style shared memory with IPC or a queue or RPC or whatever, and you like it.)
It's probably true for access to POSIX and other standards. (I can't remember the article here several months ago about how to write fast network code, but it's essentially "Embrace what Unix and Unix-like systems give you." It's not the article about the Varnish architecture.)
It's almost definitely true for module repositories, where it's not enough to track dependencies and mirror downloadable code bundles. Testing, change management, dependency resolution tracking, and documentation formats and presentation systems are essential. Not even CTAN gets it as right as CPAN.
Call it whatever you like, but I have observed Python related posts/discussions experiencing a rapid decline. Clojure/Ruby et al are beginning to take more center stage now. In most discussions, which used to be generally a buzz with Python web frameworks these days doesn't even get a slight mention of Python.
Nothing wrong here, Python was the trend of the near past. There are newer trends these days. And there will other newer trends in the future. That's how it is, every couple of years. Something new comes to replace the famous. That's how technology works.
Now just because you don't like what you read, it doesn't automatically amount to trolling.
As I wrote, "I don't have any references around to back this up."
I used Perl for a few years about 10 years ago; was quite the perl evangelist at that job. Then I found Ruby, which won my heart. But I have a pick-cover copy of the book perl (yes, all lower case). And I've read the whole thing and liked Wall's jokes. :)
Python's glory is fading pretty quickly. The web crowd is going to the next cool framework. Ruby tends to be pretty famous these days.
Pure trolling.
Because whatever tries to replace them, ultimately ends up looking up very similar to them.
That's an amazing assertion for which I would like to see proof. FWIW, I don't think Haskell looks like any of those, a passing resemblance to Lisp notwithstanding.
Perl, et al may have been done right, but it's myopic to think they are some sort of end point of perfection, if only because we don't know all the things we want to do, so we don't know all the things we need to have, "done right" or otherwise.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."