It is a distraction, the feel good for using paper straws instead of actions that actually make an impact, like improvements in the transport infrastructure, shutdown of factories that polluted the environment, flying people to meetings, limits of the kinds of engines that get produced, wars for profit, now AI data centers, and plenty of other examples that since covid the people big corps and governments could not care less.

Nah, one gets a cocktail with paper straw and feels like they are doing their part saving the planet.

Plastic straws aren't hard to find, by the way.

One of the three techniques discussed in the book "Rhetoric of reaction" is futility.

Reactionaries are often arguing against good things, which makes it difficult for them to directly attack them.

So they develop consistent techniques to attack them from oblique angles:

> Hirschman describes the reactionary theses thus:

> According to the Perversity Thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic status quo only serves, perversely, to exacerbate the very condition one wishes to remedy (compare: Unintended consequences).[4]

> The Futility Thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will fail to "make a dent" in the problem, and the motives of those who keep attempting futile reforms are suspect.[5][6]

> The Jeopardy Thesis states that the risk of the proposed change is too great as it imperils some previous, precious accomplishment.[6][7]

> He characterizes these theses as "rhetorics of intransigence" that do not further constructive debate.[8] Moreover, he says they turn optimism about social advancement into pessimism.[9]

The futility (and perversity) ones are what I think of when people are angry about straws on the internet.

I just don't understand how complaining endlessly about leads to solving any of the bigger problems. Each of which could be dismissed in the same way.