OOP as actually implemented and found in the wild isn't about Smalltalk or message passing. It's about transforming functions into methods by unnecessarily wrapping behaviour in classes, as an example of cargo-cult programming.
OOP the idea is great. How do you actually find it in the world?
To use OOP properly is probably as complicated as doing functional programming or data-driven programming properly. The "problem" is that the learning curve is much less steep and the use-cases more extense, so obviously there's a lot more people misusing it.
Take callback hell. Opaque callbacks are the functional equivalent of goto statements.
Also, many functional programmers, particularly Haskell programmers, seem not to care about readability and maintainability. They're focused on maximizing their own productivity as an individual coder, and writing cool concise and abstracted code that might not actually be easy for another engineer to understand and modify.
The difference though is that good functional programming is still quite common whereas good object oriented programming seems to be rare (the one exception being microservices).
Say what you want about the foreign-ness of the syntax, but Haskell code is some of the most maintainable code out there. I can often times dive into another person's haskell code and grok it more easily than the equivalent code in a "friendlier" language like python or ruby, nevermind a more comparable language like scala. Haskell is also a breeze to refactor, the compiler and type system make changing and moving arbitrary chunks of code around pretty straight-forward, even when the code is using abstractions you're not familiar with; something which cannot be said for many other languages. The biggest downside to haskell (apart from the learning curve) is having to deal with cabal+stack.
in some sense they are worse because you can't just grep for the call site of an anonymous closure, like you can for a goto, it could be almost anywhere in the code base
A cousin comment notes that true objects are often called "actors". This is fine, but people who do this without an understanding of this history may come to miss out entirely on objects, only seeing what Erlang and Elm have to offer and not E.
As a hint, try removing the meme entirely from your inventory for a bit: For the next week, whenever you think or say "object-oriented", interrupt yourself and instead think about what specific language feature, be it classes or inheritance or whatever, you actually wanted to reference.
It works. It is a sufficiently good model for many domains, even though it obviously is "impure" by combining the domain model and generally a whole lot of implementation details nee requirements.
It clearly is an unreasonably effective strategy that has no solid theoretical footing, yet that does not prevent it from working in practice.