While I generally share your view of NFTs, I don't think your dismissal of them is really fair.
I think what it really boils down to is that, in the "real world", consumers are willing to pay many, many millions of dollars solely based on provenance. That is, one mediocre painting may be worth a couple hundred dollars, but if it can be validated that the painting was actually painted by some famous (dead) grand master, that painting is now suddenly worth millions of dollars, even though nothing about that painting has changed.
So, what NFT boosters were arguing was that, if people are willing to pay millions of dollars for provenance in the physical world, why not the digital world? In my belief it's that humans have evolved to view 2 distinct physical object, even if they are exactly the same, as separate - an exact copy of a painting so that it is indistinguishable from the original to the human eye would still be a different painting and not have the provenance of the original. For digital jpegs, we don't view them that way - the same image on two different monitors is "the same image". For physicists out there it's kinda like the difference between fermi dirac statistics and bose einstein statistics.
Thus, while I agree that NFTs are all scams, I think we should also be asking the question of why we are willing to assign so much value to provenance in the physical world - that seems crazy to me, too.