Fandom wasn't "new" when Eminem wrote the song "Stan" back in whenever it was that I can't be arsed to look-up - far from it, actually. See: The Beatles[0]. I'

Fandom wasn't "new" when Eminem wrote the song "Stan" back in whenever it was that I can't be arsed to look-up - far from it, actually. See: The Beatles[0]. I'm guessing they're now called "stans" because, apparently, that allows more letters to fit into a snazzy Twitter post? Fucked if I know or care, nor will I be fucking calling them "stans" because there's already another word in the English language to classify them but fuck grammatics, amiright!? The piece seems to just be a long complaint, proferring information that the rest of the world already knew; so, I have to wonder what the value-add is? O.k., it's unhealthy. And? What are you saying that adds anything of substantive value, other than the fact that you got in a tiff on Twitter (the trailer-park of the social medias) and that your account got banned? What - precisely - is unhealthy about fandom? Any studies or reports to support your statement in the recent years? Any suggestions to make it better? Is there anything substantive to come away with from this "article" - whatsoever? [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatlemania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatlemania