And I think you have a personal bias against them rather then making a clear observation about their use.
I notice none of the big players (StackExchange, Facebook, Google, YouTube) use breadcrumbs.
- StackExchange uses tags. Those are like breadcrumbs, but it's an associated way rather then structural.
- Facebook uses AJAX inplace loading for most user content (so you never leave a page the info is related to), but the rest of their website uses breadcrumbs. For example their online help.
- Google uses page numbers in search results, and their portal sites are very AJAX driven, but for the rest of the website. They have a breadcrumb at the top as in this example.
- YouTube displays mostly a feed of videos, but if you browse channels then there is a breadcrum as in this example.
Users aren't stupid, they know where they are
They know how they got here, but not where here is. That doesn't make them stupid, but they can still get lost.
Visitors will be required to use alternative visual information to discover what the parent article is for the current article. Either the menu navigation or some other navigating method.
Breadcrumbs are consistant and common.
Breadcrumbs add clutter, and give off a 90s feel
Another way to say the same thing.
Breadcrumbs have been a consistent navigational tool since the early 90's.
Breadcrumbs are only helpful if the site design itself is bad and the pages that would normally appear in breadcrumbs are otherwise hard to reach
The effectiveness of a website's design, the structure of it's articles and their accessibility have absolutely nothing to do with breadcrumbs.