Wymin Resktors


The popular and largely semi-comedic argot thot, meaning That Ho Over There is a acronym which has a decidedly pejorative connotation (stemming mainly from the “ho” part) and is often paired with a “e” (online) such that one can differentiate those “hoes” who “act-out” online from those that do their business largely off of it. It’s a acronym which had found particular popularity within many online circles of the broader dissident right, especially for those with a religious bent who wish to act out fantasy’s of their particular brand of theocracy. These individuals fancy themselves supreme respecters of women and label those females whom they see talking about their pet topics as e-thots should they stray too far from doctrine as they look upon such action as a perversion of the “natural” placing of women within society.

Young woman expresses her disdain for female rejectionism by both leftist and rightist ideologues.

Whilst this may all seem rather trite and unremarkable, memes, just like jokes, often underlie a number of very serious philosophical proclivities. Jon Stewart might indeed be a comedian who makes rather silly jokes but behind the humor is a great deal of conviction and sincerity. Stewart spent the majority of his televised career energetically taking apart the GOP and making them the brunt of the majority of his jokes not just because he thought it would be a good laugh but because he hatred them and blamed them (in many instances rightly) for various conditions of US decay and destruction. His humor was a weapon and one which lionized a whole generation against the Grand Ole Party and everything it stood for. It would be wise to keep this in mind lest one think to themselves “but it’s just a joke.” Jokes are rarely just. This, of course, should not be viewed as some kind of injunction against humor, but simply to remain cognizant of the fact that when humor and politics intermingle, the latter is always using the former in some capacity.


With that said the essential premise of those who utilize this acronym is to “bully” females off of what every platform they are currently utilizing because it is “not their place” whilst simultaneously convincing these very same women that they should drop the “thottery” and just be properly “trad.” It’s rather like walking up to a black man and saying, “Why you gotta be such a nigger? Also, would you mind raking my yard for me whilst I’m away?” It is rare to such a group of people who are so obsessed with persuading and yet so wholly inept at it. These bizarre creature’s ire is heightened when they come into contact with any women who attains a measure of popularity greater than their own. Now, given how scare it is to find a woman willing to, not just talk about politics, but talk about dissident politics, it is only natural that such women’s profiles would rise much faster than any given man’s due to their commonality. In this way women are inherently advantaged and one can easily envision the cries which echo forth from oft ignored content producers: “But this tradthot doesn’t know half the history I do!” It may well be true but should not one simply be happy that more women are talking about ideas which largely cohere with your own? Shouldn’t you be pleased for such success? Shouldn’t you wait to find some evidence for grift before accusing people you don’t in any personal capacity know to be nothing more than whores? I’d certainly say you should if you’ve any semblance of intelligence or ethical integrity. Further more there is the defacto assumption made by such creatures that all of these women are trying to be traditionalists, they just assume it, often without any evidence basis, but if these politically savvy (or attemptedly politically savvy) dissident female commentators are not then the phrase itself is, when there applied, wholly meaningless.

Religious weirdo brags about being so unpleasant towards women that they block him.

If one is serious about one’s political movement, if one wants real change, it should be realized that kicking women out of, not just a movement but politics entirely, for no other reason then the upset of a fragile ego is nothing more than shooting oneself in the foot.

The Respect Demand, Or, How To Refute Yourself Without Realizing It For The Sake of Appearing Non-Partisan


Consider this most common of political responses.

“I don’t agree with your argument, but I respect your opinion.”

Scarcely has there been a more popular and simultaneously ridiculous statement made in the whole history of modern American discourse than this one. Yet, it is one that you, whoever and wherever you are, have doubtless heard a thousand times over. It is a tempering tactic utilized primarily by political Centrists (or those who are aping as such), and may also be heard a great deal by the acolytes of individuals who proclaim themselves to be “Freethinkers,” or, “Rationalists” (which usually do not use the word to denote the philosophical school). But it is wholly wrongheaded, given some contingencies, for if the opinion which one respects is inexorably tied to the argument that one disagrees with, and one does not respect the argument then by parsimony, one cannot, also, respect the opinion. If, however, the opinion is suitably disconnected from the aforementioned argument than the equation swiftly changes.

That is to say, if [the argument] is not equal [congruent] to R [your respect/admiration] but IS equal to O [the opinion informing A] and A = O then so R MUST also = A. And yet it fundamentally cannot because, though A = O, R cannot equal A, and thus one reaches a inescapable logical impasse. The equation is self-refuting.


There are also other linguistic formulations very similar to the aforementioned such as, “I respect your opinion but I disagree.” This presents a slightly different problem and thus a slightly different solution but the core of the issue is still quite the same which is that in the effort to appear polite, one dons a mask of fawning adoration and pretends of the man or woman who stands in starkest opposition before him as if they were some esteemed colleague when in reality nothing of the sort could possibly be any further from the truth. If one disagree wholeheartedly with a position then one clearly has no respect for it and if that same position informs a suitably portion of the personality of the person who is holding it then that same person is also, not worthy of respect. What people mean, if they were being truly honest with themselves, is that they do not respect opinions they disagree with but rather that they respect the rights of others to have them. This too is a vexed question, for “rights” in any objective sense do not exist. All rights are merely those with the ability to crush you restraining themselves and their like cohorts from doing so. Accepting this, one should have no respect for rights, either, but rather, one should have respect for the powerful whom are cognizantly self restrained.