OO is not evil, but it also shouldn't be your default solution to everything.
Also, who is this person? I immediately distrust someone who calls themselves 'a pretty cool guy'. That's for the rest of us to decide.
With Smalltalk and Objective-C both being effectively dead at this point, that really only leaves Ruby (and arguably Erlang) as the only languages that are able to express OO. And neither of those languages are terribly popular either. Chances are it won't be your default solution, even if you want it to be.
Curious about your case for this. I don't know a lot about Erlang other than "it's what Elixir is based on" or whatever technical jargon is more accurate. I thought it was functional.
I was mostly riffing on the time Joe Armstrong, creator of Erlang, said that Erlang might be the only object-oriented language in existence. Although he's not exactly wrong, is he?
> I thought it was functional.
I think that is reasonable. Objects, describing encapsulation of data, are what define functional. Without encapsulation, you merely have procedural. Of course, that still does not imply the objects are oriented...
For that you need message passing. But Erlang has message passing too! So there is a good case to be made that is object-oriented.