...and that /is/ topic of discussion every time this discussion happens
Every agile criticism conversation goes like this
A: agile as practiced is bad
B: but the manifesto is solid
It's predictable as the sun rising
Scrum is like Spaghetti Carbonara in America. The ingredients are simple and there's a tiny bit of technique involved that anybody can figure out after a few tries. For some reason though almost everybody that makes it decides that they know better than the people that invented it and so adulterates it with peas and onions and garlic and cream and cream cheese and Italian seasoning and parsley and chives until it ends up being Olive Garden Alfredo. If they wanted Carbonara then they would have cooked the Carbonara, not the waterfall with a bunch of JIRA workflows and four-hour meetings layered on top. They just did what they would have done anyway while attempting to sound fancy via obfuscation.
DevOps is a culture. It can also be the specific subset of highly skilled individuals who were part of or an outcome of said cultures cross pollination. Today DevOps most often means fairly unskilled person hitting pipelines with hammer.
In the end, the same old people with the same old commercial interests adopted the term in a way that benefited them but changed the meaning of the term because change was not actually something anyone wanted.
C: Therefore you’re doing it wrong.
And once an “agile guru” enters the conversation:
D: You need my book / seminar / services.
(Not for any deeper reason, only that whenever socialism fails, people tell you that 'real socialism' hasn't been tried, yet.)
Or: liberal democracy (I'm sure you can find a synonym that ends in *-ism) has been tried. It's been doing ok-ish. Obviously it has warts and all. But more importantly: approximately no one ever seriously claims that 'real liberal democracy' hasn't been tried.
Similar for constitutional monarchy, or 'social market economy', or dictatorships, etc. People can mostly agree that the real deal has been tried.