The good parts listed as OOP don't seem exclusive to it though. They fall more under just plain, old, good program design regardless of the paradigm. But subclassing, while occasionally useful, does.
Isn't it sort of a truism that any good idea seems like a "plain, old, good" idea once it's become a consensus thing? I mean, sure, other modified paradigms have picked that stuff up, and the features aren't "unique" to OO. But they were certainly popularized by OO, and the languages we talk about as "OO" languages all implement them in mostly the same ways and for the same reasons.
So basically this is the no-true-scotsman way to perpetuate the strawman, I guess.
I'd say one property of good ideas is that they are able to survive much longer than bad, so, yes, they have a higher probability of reaching a general consensus. Bad ideas can also reach consensus. Consensus is not always an indicator of quality, and I don't believe good ideas are destined to reach consensus.
I can't really argue with the historical impact of OO, because it's obviously had a ton.
OO is always so loosely defined that a no-true-scotsman argument is almost inevitable, but I'd certainly say a subclassing model is one of the defining features of the OO languages we talk about.
