This! In a past life I did stage makeup for operas that would be viewed by a huge house under bright, blaring lights. Stage makeup looks crazy up close, y'all, but it helps define facial features for those faraway audience members who wouldn't be able to make them out otherwise. I'm pretty sure that's what's going…

Also not everyone needs a same contouring. Different face shapes might benefit from different types of contouring.

So many things wrong with this I don't even know where to start but I'll try. 1) Why do you care how these women have their makeup done? Or how other do their makeup? If they feel fabulous then all you've done is point out how much of an asshole you are. Thumbs up. 2) Second rate drag queens? There just something…

Contouring for regular people and also everyone who's not doing a photoshoot- get some kind of very subtle illumizer or something like ysl touche eclat. Use that under your eyebrow, top of your cheekbones and down the bridge of your nose, use bronzer or blush as usual. Blend, blend, blend. That is it. Do not try…

Look, this is BAD contouring. It's not good. Good contouring is awesome. I don't contour because I haven't the skills.

This article could've been a good jumping off point for discussing the racism of the small nose beauty ideal. But mocking chicks who fuck up their makeup is easier.

Second-rate drag queen? BSHH! And another thing... contouring has been around for ages, always will be, just in more or less subtle fashions. Most of these images look funny because they're not blended, either because it's an in-progress snap or it's a close-up of makeup that was meant to be read from further away.…

I mean, okay, this is obviously absurd... but I am giving a "pass" to Nicki Minaj and Julie Chen because it's possible that their makeup was done to be viewed either from afar and under super bright lights, or on camera and under super bright lights. Once I watched a documentary about dancers in some famous ballet…

There is a difference between contouring and bad contouring.

"Second-rate drag queen"

All of this can be explained by a lack of blending. Stage make up 101 - blend until there are no more lines or discernible shapes.

Umm "Buffalo Stance" was my jam of Summer 1989, not 1998. damn I'm old!

Uhm... the average age of the papers you reference is almost 30 years old. The newest is 2007, but that is the ONLY paper mentioned from the last 10 years, and one of only two from this century.

And there are a lot of people who don't profit from vaccination sales that recommend them. Like... a LOT.

And how many of these papers have you read? Most people would expect an annotated bibliography at the minimum when you are presenting a lit search. Half of these papers are not even relevant.

Can we please not call them "pro-vaxxers?" We don't call all tenured biologists pro-evolutionists or all board certified physicians pro-AIDS-truthers. There's no such thing as a pro-vaxx person or physician. There are normal, functional, educated people, and there are vaxx-deniers, AIDS-deniers, and evolution deniers.…

Instead of "pro-vaxxers" can we just be "normal people" or "rational everyday humans?" I don't want these anti-vax people to be given any more ideas that this bullshit is a two-sided "debate."

We didn't have any by me :( I would have broken international treaties to get one on my commute.

How about we collectively tell this tax-free billion dollar organization to go fuck itself?

Well... did it work?

Oh, man. I ended up in HR over my tea.