What I mean to say is that you appear to be describing OOP as something opposed to functional programming when it really is not.

Yes, I do believe that I oversimplified this a lot. In fact, languages like Erlang take an approach much closer to OOP in their design than many "OOP" languages. The main point I was trying to get across was that instead of relying on common object relationships ("I can mutate myself/my instance variables"), you can instead write code in a more functional style. If I had written a longer version of this article I probably would have gone more in-depth on OOP vs. procedural and functional vs. imperative instead of just calling it OOP vs. imperative.