Sure, and I agree to a large extent, but if I'm doing woodworking and my blades are so fragile that they snap with the tiniest amount of friction, I'm probably not going to be very happy working like that for very long.
But why would you ever intentionally use (or vigorously defend) demonstrably bad tools? Just because you could do well with a bad tool doesn't mean you should or that you couldn't do better with easy-to-get other, better tools.
If you are forced to use an inferior tool like Agile, then sure, you want to make the best of it and be a craftsman who can still succeed.
That is an endorsement of being adaptable and self-reliant as an engineer, not an endorsement of Agile.
And if a tool is bad like Agile, it's useful to point it out and slowly steer the bureaucracy that feeds it into bastardizing whatever the next tool is, but hopefully inching forward to a better global state as well.
