That it's badly taught, not necessarily bad in itself.

It makes a difference for categorizing and talking about OOP though.

If the default level is good, and some people take it to absurd counterproductive levels, you need to give a bit of a warning.

If the default level is absurd and counterproductive, but using a fraction that much is good, you need to approach the conversation in an entirely different way and "OOP is bad" is kind of correct and important to address.

Again, your argument boils down to "doing bad stuff is bad", which I completely agree with.

"Do it the right way!" is not very helpful advice, though.

We want to be able to say that one type of OOP is good and another is bad with relatively specific examples. We should have different terms for those types.

You did the equivalent of replying to someone talking about nutritional tactics with "tl;dr eat healthy". Yeah, figuring out healthy is why we're here, looking at these different techniques and sub-techniques and figuring out at what point they become counterproductive.

> Whenever I see OOP taught, the expectation is that every non-primative is an object in a massive hierarchy.

I actually had a great professor who'd worked at Microsoft during the dark ages, and taught OOP with very sensible "this can get way out of control if you drink the cool-aid" warnings.

I also had a different professor that preached FP to an absurd degree, literally refusing to accept work that had a "too much OOP" flavor to it. Bad teaching and practices exist anywhere, hence my TLDR at the top.