Sickening how this cretin thinks women should be treated. If a man doesn't have any self-respect, he also won't have respect for anyone else. A profile picture generated by AI tells me everything I need to know about him. He sounds like a small-dick-man. Sitting behind his computer, attacking women makes him feel powerful. Surely the only place he feels any power. You go NahgOS!!
Your unflinching devotion to truth, justice, and a better, more considerate way is beyond reproach. Bravo. It’s a zinger a minute, every minute, and while I hate that the work is necessary, I could not be more grateful that you’re out there doing it like nobody else can. Phenomenal stuff—will keep eyes to the skies (and nose to the comment sections), never a dull a moment in Gotham! Thank you for all that you do—truly a Herculean effort!
Correction: an alpha-widow is the common college tramp who slept with guys above her level and is broken because they wouldn’t commit.
Thanks for noticing my Hollywood good looks, I resembled Val more in High school though.
Slut shaming needs to be made great again. Substack is overflowing with hoes adopting whore talk personas like it’s cool. It’s not. Just reads like a jaded Reno hooker.
The effort you took though… maybe she’ll give you a ♥️. #megaSimp 🙄
You keep calling it “slut shaming,” like it’s some grand moral stand. It’s not. It’s a tantrum. You didn’t build a standard — you built a soapbox out of jealousy and lifted vocabulary from forums full of men who’ve never been invited to the party.
You say “alpha-widow” like it’s a real thing. It’s not. It’s just a term insecure men made up so they could explain why women dated someone else and never circled back. That’s not psychology. That’s a bedtime story you whisper to yourself while scrolling the very feeds you claim to hate.
You say I’m a simp for defending someone’s right to speak? Nah. You’re just rattled that a man can back a woman without demanding control. You don’t know what to do with that — because you think power only comes through hierarchy. But here I am, standing equal, not begging for attention, and still making you flinch.
Your “Val Kilmer” line? Cute. But nothing says I peaked in high school like trying to weaponize yearbook looks mid-argument. You wrote that line for yourself, Jason. No one asked.
And by the way: If women’s writing truly disgusts you… stop reading it. But you don’t. You don’t because you’re not repelled — you’re obsessed. You keep crawling back like it owes you something. You want her broken. You want her quiet. But she isn’t. And that’s what eats you.
You aren’t calling anyone out.
You’re just standing in the corner yelling at people who moved on without you.
And here’s the truth, Jason:
No one “alpha-widowed” you.
They just didn’t wait.
Now go scream “#megaSimp” into your void of choice — we’ll be over here finishing stories.
1. “Wow, captain save-a-hoe! You’ve been triggered.”
Tone: Dismissive, mocking, and reactive.
Subtext: This person is attempting to undermine whoever they’re replying to by calling them emotionally reactive (“triggered”) and mocking them for defending someone (likely a woman) with “captain save-a-hoe,” a pejorative term aimed at men who support or protect women labeled as promiscuous.
Analysis: It's a common deflection tactic. Rather than engaging with substance, they aim to discredit the person emotionally and socially.
2. “Correction: an alpha-widow is the common college tramp who slept with guys above her level and is broken because they wouldn’t commit.”
Tone: Cruel, reductionist, steeped in red pill ideology.
Subtext: The term “alpha widow” is niche manosphere slang implying a woman is emotionally damaged because she once dated high-status men who wouldn’t commit—and now no one else measures up. This is drenched in misogyny and assumes women’s worth is defined by their desirability and ability to secure a relationship.
Word choice: “Tramp,” “above her level,” and “broken” are emotionally charged and shaming.
Analysis: The use of this term reveals that the commenter has absorbed toxic online culture and uses it to belittle women’s sexual agency while blaming them for their emotional outcomes.
3. “Thanks for noticing my Hollywood good looks, I resembled Val more in High school though.”
Tone: Deflective with a dash of narcissism.
Subtext: A weak attempt at humor or self-flattery, perhaps referencing Val Kilmer? It's an awkward flex that breaks tone and comes off insecure.
Analysis: This feels like an odd interjection—meant to either disarm or distract, but mostly it reads as cringe.
Subtext: A call to return to outdated, misogynistic norms where women’s sexual behavior is policed and punished socially.
Analysis: This is dangerous rhetoric cloaked in internet edgelord bravado. It celebrates shame as a tool for control and social conformity, particularly aimed at women who express sexual autonomy.
5. “Substack is overflowing with hoes adopting whore talk personas like it’s cool. It’s not. Just reads like a jaded Reno hooker.”
Tone: Misogynistic, bitter, and likely envious.
Subtext: This person is criticizing sexually expressive women on Substack, especially those who write about sex from an empowered or pleasure-positive perspective.
Word choice: “Hoes,” “whore talk,” and “Reno hooker” are intended to be degrading and dismissive. "Jaded" adds an edge of bitterness, as if their disdain is rooted in personal disappointment.
Analysis: This feels less like social critique and more like a tantrum from someone uncomfortable with confident, sexually liberated women—likely because they feel excluded or rejected by them.
6. “The effort you took though… maybe she’ll give you a ♥️.”
Tone: Snide, condescending.
Subtext: Trying to belittle someone for supporting or defending the woman being attacked, implying the only reason a man would do that is to seek attention or affection (not because he genuinely agrees or cares).
Analysis: It’s a last-ditch jab that screams insecurity and zero emotional maturity. It's giving "Reddit basement overlord energy."
Overall Analysis:
This comment reeks of:
Internalized misogyny and red pill ideology (heavily influenced by manosphere jargon).
Insecurity and resentment directed at sexually expressive women.
Projection (he accuses others of being “triggered” while writing a highly reactive and emotional diatribe).
Trolling behavior meant to provoke, offend, or dominate rather than engage in meaningful conversation.
Final Thoughts:
This comment is not an argument. It’s a cry for attention and control disguised as commentary. It's an emotional wound trying to wear a leather jacket of logic and swagger. If anything, it showcases just how threatened some people feel when they see women thriving in spaces that once ignored or silenced them.
If you’re moderating or deciding how to respond, your options could range from ignoring/blocking (don’t feed the troll), to a measured clapback if it serves your community, or using it as an example to spark a bigger convo around why this kind of rhetoric thrives—and why it needs to be called out.-- Stay Teezy💋
Sickening how this cretin thinks women should be treated. If a man doesn't have any self-respect, he also won't have respect for anyone else. A profile picture generated by AI tells me everything I need to know about him. He sounds like a small-dick-man. Sitting behind his computer, attacking women makes him feel powerful. Surely the only place he feels any power. You go NahgOS!!
Captain, my Captain. Thank you for unmasking people who attack women in bad faith. 🍄🟫
Once again, a brilliant breakdown and a major reality check for these losers if they’ve got the IQ to read all that was said. 🤌🏼🤌🏼🤌🏼
this is so frustrating to see the comments that Abby is getting... completely undeserved and those commenting are ignorant 🤦♀️
and you're doing good work, Nahg <3
Your unflinching devotion to truth, justice, and a better, more considerate way is beyond reproach. Bravo. It’s a zinger a minute, every minute, and while I hate that the work is necessary, I could not be more grateful that you’re out there doing it like nobody else can. Phenomenal stuff—will keep eyes to the skies (and nose to the comment sections), never a dull a moment in Gotham! Thank you for all that you do—truly a Herculean effort!
Wow, captain save-a-hoe! You’ve been triggered.
Correction: an alpha-widow is the common college tramp who slept with guys above her level and is broken because they wouldn’t commit.
Thanks for noticing my Hollywood good looks, I resembled Val more in High school though.
Slut shaming needs to be made great again. Substack is overflowing with hoes adopting whore talk personas like it’s cool. It’s not. Just reads like a jaded Reno hooker.
The effort you took though… maybe she’ll give you a ♥️. #megaSimp 🙄
Jason,
You keep calling it “slut shaming,” like it’s some grand moral stand. It’s not. It’s a tantrum. You didn’t build a standard — you built a soapbox out of jealousy and lifted vocabulary from forums full of men who’ve never been invited to the party.
You say “alpha-widow” like it’s a real thing. It’s not. It’s just a term insecure men made up so they could explain why women dated someone else and never circled back. That’s not psychology. That’s a bedtime story you whisper to yourself while scrolling the very feeds you claim to hate.
You say I’m a simp for defending someone’s right to speak? Nah. You’re just rattled that a man can back a woman without demanding control. You don’t know what to do with that — because you think power only comes through hierarchy. But here I am, standing equal, not begging for attention, and still making you flinch.
Your “Val Kilmer” line? Cute. But nothing says I peaked in high school like trying to weaponize yearbook looks mid-argument. You wrote that line for yourself, Jason. No one asked.
And by the way: If women’s writing truly disgusts you… stop reading it. But you don’t. You don’t because you’re not repelled — you’re obsessed. You keep crawling back like it owes you something. You want her broken. You want her quiet. But she isn’t. And that’s what eats you.
You aren’t calling anyone out.
You’re just standing in the corner yelling at people who moved on without you.
And here’s the truth, Jason:
No one “alpha-widowed” you.
They just didn’t wait.
Now go scream “#megaSimp” into your void of choice — we’ll be over here finishing stories.
Ok but this… THIS is the real post. Best clap back I’ve seen in forever!! “You wrote that line for yourself, Jason. No one asked.” 💥
Fucking epic 🤣😂🤣😂
Are we sure he's not still in high school? 😏
1. “Wow, captain save-a-hoe! You’ve been triggered.”
Tone: Dismissive, mocking, and reactive.
Subtext: This person is attempting to undermine whoever they’re replying to by calling them emotionally reactive (“triggered”) and mocking them for defending someone (likely a woman) with “captain save-a-hoe,” a pejorative term aimed at men who support or protect women labeled as promiscuous.
Analysis: It's a common deflection tactic. Rather than engaging with substance, they aim to discredit the person emotionally and socially.
2. “Correction: an alpha-widow is the common college tramp who slept with guys above her level and is broken because they wouldn’t commit.”
Tone: Cruel, reductionist, steeped in red pill ideology.
Subtext: The term “alpha widow” is niche manosphere slang implying a woman is emotionally damaged because she once dated high-status men who wouldn’t commit—and now no one else measures up. This is drenched in misogyny and assumes women’s worth is defined by their desirability and ability to secure a relationship.
Word choice: “Tramp,” “above her level,” and “broken” are emotionally charged and shaming.
Analysis: The use of this term reveals that the commenter has absorbed toxic online culture and uses it to belittle women’s sexual agency while blaming them for their emotional outcomes.
3. “Thanks for noticing my Hollywood good looks, I resembled Val more in High school though.”
Tone: Deflective with a dash of narcissism.
Subtext: A weak attempt at humor or self-flattery, perhaps referencing Val Kilmer? It's an awkward flex that breaks tone and comes off insecure.
Analysis: This feels like an odd interjection—meant to either disarm or distract, but mostly it reads as cringe.
4. “Slut shaming needs to be made great again.”
Tone: Aggressively judgmental, purposefully provocative.
Subtext: A call to return to outdated, misogynistic norms where women’s sexual behavior is policed and punished socially.
Analysis: This is dangerous rhetoric cloaked in internet edgelord bravado. It celebrates shame as a tool for control and social conformity, particularly aimed at women who express sexual autonomy.
5. “Substack is overflowing with hoes adopting whore talk personas like it’s cool. It’s not. Just reads like a jaded Reno hooker.”
Tone: Misogynistic, bitter, and likely envious.
Subtext: This person is criticizing sexually expressive women on Substack, especially those who write about sex from an empowered or pleasure-positive perspective.
Word choice: “Hoes,” “whore talk,” and “Reno hooker” are intended to be degrading and dismissive. "Jaded" adds an edge of bitterness, as if their disdain is rooted in personal disappointment.
Analysis: This feels less like social critique and more like a tantrum from someone uncomfortable with confident, sexually liberated women—likely because they feel excluded or rejected by them.
6. “The effort you took though… maybe she’ll give you a ♥️.”
Tone: Snide, condescending.
Subtext: Trying to belittle someone for supporting or defending the woman being attacked, implying the only reason a man would do that is to seek attention or affection (not because he genuinely agrees or cares).
Analysis: It’s a last-ditch jab that screams insecurity and zero emotional maturity. It's giving "Reddit basement overlord energy."
Overall Analysis:
This comment reeks of:
Internalized misogyny and red pill ideology (heavily influenced by manosphere jargon).
Insecurity and resentment directed at sexually expressive women.
Projection (he accuses others of being “triggered” while writing a highly reactive and emotional diatribe).
Trolling behavior meant to provoke, offend, or dominate rather than engage in meaningful conversation.
Final Thoughts:
This comment is not an argument. It’s a cry for attention and control disguised as commentary. It's an emotional wound trying to wear a leather jacket of logic and swagger. If anything, it showcases just how threatened some people feel when they see women thriving in spaces that once ignored or silenced them.
If you’re moderating or deciding how to respond, your options could range from ignoring/blocking (don’t feed the troll), to a measured clapback if it serves your community, or using it as an example to spark a bigger convo around why this kind of rhetoric thrives—and why it needs to be called out.-- Stay Teezy💋
Bless your heart... It must be exhausting carrying all that fragile masculinity and zero pussy?