Another poster mentioned that any paradigm can be misused. Yes but OO has a sort-of "least bad to miss-use" quality.
You can have a date object or a query object or Haskell-function object, and they are all conceptually terrible but they still allow people who only know OO to work with all kinds of things. OO is created to "glue" anything together with anything else. The equivalent with functional programming is "FP is created to "glue" only other functional elements together with other functional elements".
And OO definitely offends the sensibility of those who things done correctly and well - which includes lots of programmers. The "least bad" is indeed an enemy of the good. But you're not going to get all the world's systems redone correctly as the new paradigm so if you want to end OO, you'd need an alternative that could also least bad in many circumstances.
You have exactly the same issue with any paradigm. I am seeing it now with functional programming as people go all obsessive into converting everything into it.
Is OO good for everything? No. Is FP good for everything? No. And yet, unless you've attempted to use them for everything, you're unlikely to understand why they ain't good for everything.
A connection client is suitable to be written as a class. It didn't make sense for outsider to see what the internal connection state is and manipulate it randomly. You want to just call .connect() and happily use methods on it.
But makes a math method be a class with multi constructor parameter just don't make sense, why not just make it a static method or a bare function(If the language supports it) with multi parameter?
And the most worst problem(Though it is not related to this topic). Someone writes pattern from OO language in other language. Even the language itself has the capability to express it directly and gracefully. (personally I think this is why OO haters exists...)