Read number 10. I think it's pretty clear that this person doesn't stick around for the money. They stick around because being linked to someone famous makes them feel special.

To be able to sycophantically bask in the reflected light of a celebrity and use it to delude yourself into thinking you're somehow more important than most other people.

One can only hope.

The worst part of this entire shitfest of an article is at the end, when the author bemoans just how oh-so-unbearably unimportant they'd feel if they weren't connected to a celebrity in some way. Like, how fucking weak must your sense of self be to feel that way? And are we seriously supposed to feel sorry for this…

So quit.

I was wondering why no one had mentioned this yet.

"Don't wear anything that a dude might find 'distracting,' i.e., boner-inducing."

I don't disagree with your overall point about the food industry.

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the argument. When someone says that "everything is chemicals" it is generally in reaction someone using the word chemical as a scary buzzword. The point is that's it's fucking stupid to assume that "chemical" = "bad".

Comments like this are why you're my favorite commenter on this whole website.

"You can't condemn Solange without knowing what provoked her."

Straight-up victim-blaming.

You called?

The fact that that "Momstrology" book even exists is super fucking depressing to me. Wow.

You mean the one, singular guy?

I would bet money that female teachers have inappropriate relationships with male students very nearly as frequently as vice-versa. It's just that those cases rarely get reported.

That's fucked up.

Wait, what? No. Lots of regular commenters are calling out this bullshit.

Yeah, but the right to assembly isn't absolute.

You sure didn't. What part of the constitution does this violate?