I get what you mean. Reddit Atheist is an archetype not a filing category. One can be Reddit Atheist without even making contact with a reddit

“I have removed the chocolate from the tree. Science doesn’t allow chocolate to grow on trees”

Anon science’d so hard he because a superstitious nutcase (many such cases). This is completely zealot brained.

Which is ironic cos no bonding gets done in that case

/> greentext about trying to woo a woman again

That’s what makes the world go round.

I think you overestimate the ability of biological women to hold their own against biological men once the men are >14 years old. Women deal less forceful blows and they usually have shorter stature which reduces leverage, this reducing force of attack and wrestling ability. They have less grip strength usually, and will struggle to reach the man.

In other words: it doesn’t really happen? Also why exactly would violence be based, anyway? If this is some sort of reaction to men attacking women, then pretending there are “based women who beat on men” doesn’t really solve that issue, nor does it necessarily solve any problems if it actually happens.

If we are talking about literal boys and girls, I’m never going to celebrate kids beating each other up. That’s just weird.

I’ve never met a “femcel” - as in a woman with poor social skills who stays inside and games a lot, perhaps lacking optimism about their romantic prospects and overall destiny - in my life so the whole concept did strike me as weird. Seeing the “femcel” subreddits, twitter pages and Instagram pages, all it reminded me of were the toxic girls from my hometown who essentially scared off new prospects by being so rude to them and CLEARLY chose their lifestyle very early on.

I therefore think femcel is a misnomer. I think generally women aren’t getting hung up on men in an incel-ly way - the ones that do skip straight to stalker serial killer lady - I think women are good at socialising and always have some sort of support system.

Kids be messing with the buttons

Right? I would consider reporting, i.e putting a bit of yourself and putting your real opinions/demeanour into the role, to be a real job - but what these people do is just act as mouthpieces for the regime. Everything from their appearance too, to what they say, to how they say it (above tweet is a great example) is suppose to re-inforce the beliefs of our regime. Regime is the right word, btw - it simply means organised power.

They would know all about lazy spoiled kids i’m sure

“Statisticians are the dentists of mathematics” like, they do a very specialised job that a generalist would struggle to perform correctly without their level of specialised training, where performing their duties inadequately or forgoiing their services can completely disrupt the function of various area of life/business?

Maybe “Marshalls” working for courts would set out on horses to round up runaways and bring them before the court.

I reckon the high prevalance of the Smith surname isn’t really down to a highly smith-based economy, but because it was a quite respectable profession for both social classes - high paid, possibly self employed, talented/educated - but also useful strong and dependable. So if you have to choose between different surnames you might therefore go:

• “ah my parent was a smith so i can be a smith too”
• “my parent chose to use their smith parent’s surname so i will choose it too because it gets respect”

Or, maybe smiths always needed a lot of helpers and instead of taking the surname “Prentice/Prentiss” they would just go with Smith, as it’s neater.

Maybe those with some experience working a forge or shaping metal had more liberty to move to different towns for work; In a new town, locals who’d lived there their whole life wouldn’t need an identifying surname (assuming this is pre-surname consolidation in Britain) but the Smiths would have that as a tradename, thus advertising their services.

Presumably also, every town needed at least one local tinkerer or metalworker - there are/were like 10,000s of distinct villages all over England. So if we presume that tradespeople always have surnames of their trade and non-tradespeople (like farm labourers) don’t usually feel a need to, The Smiths already have a greater share of the surnamed population in the census.

Lastly, I’m guessing the smiths had a somewhat better quality of life in relation to disease and poverty. Possibly the hot forges kill off harmful bacteria and they had “middle class” income and no vulnerability to random agriculture failure, like farmers did.

One reason why I don’t think it’s because “the king ordered loads and loads of people to become smiths during one particular war and we were left with an overabundance of Smiths” is because The high prevelance of the “Smith” surname is also observed in Germany, Spain, Poland and elsewhere. As Schmidt, Herrero and Kowalski, respectively. The more you know!

Sounds like it would be nasty to eat. Is it nice?