Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a school of thought that consider the term "types" reflect to the properties that exist in programs even before they are run, as in they are a property of the programs themselves, not their state at runtime. This thinking—which is also what type theory talks about—does consider Python untyped: reading a Python program along with its specification, you are not able to assign types to each expression. But what…
That's fair, and I don't claim that I have the canonically correct answers. My broader claim is that I don't think I've ever heard someone say ugh, I despise that my bucket of bytes has an associated type! The real discussions weren't against types, but against various type disciplines. For example, I find it highly annoying to have to sprinkle type annotations all over the place when the compiler isn't smart enough…
In C++ one can declare a completely typeless lambda:
auto callsAdd = [](auto x, auto y) { return x + y; }