If you make up your own definitions things can be anything you want and have or not have any label.

Absolutely. That's why it is best to stick to the already established definitions. Kay was quite explicit about what "object-oriented" meant when the term was uttered for the first time; including specifically calling out C++ as not being object-oriented.

And yes, we all know the rest of the story about how the C++ guys were butthurt by that callout and have been on a mission to make up their own pet definition that allows C++ to become "object-oriented" ever since. I mean, who wouldn't want to latch onto a term that was about the unique features of a failed programming language that never went anywhere?

Don't you think it's a bit silly to keep rehashing tribalistic arguments that people moved on from 40 years ago?

Once someone offers up the replacement name so that we can continue to talk about what "object-oriented" referred to 40 years ago — and still refers to today, sure. Nobody cares about the exact letters and sounds.

But, until then, no. It is still something we regularly talk about. It needs a name. And lucky for us it already has one — and has had one for 40 years.