Thanks for this thread. Sometimes it's a good thing in a debate forum to acknowledge weaknesses in your own position and disagreements you have with your own team. This isn't like engaging in self-criticism before the politburo. It is just to build bridges and humanize the opposition. To those of you who have written thoughtful posts, I thank you. Those of you who refuse to participate, shame on you. You all are not posting in good faith.
The first thing I break with is the "enjoy the decline" sentiment. In so many ways life is better now than it has ever been in all of human history, particularly in the "western" industrialized nations. I'm not saying America is some motherfucking apple pie, but there is far too much romanticizing of the past.
Partnered with the above, the sub has too much right-wing traditionalism. I am a strong believer in political liberty. There's nothing wrong with being a traditional conservative, or being a right-wing Republican (speaking as a United Statesian) but there is far too much of that going on when the core topic is supposed to be amoral and apolitical. You're going to get some trolling from extremists/racists/etc of course (this is the internet after all) but when some of the mods stump for Trump that's outside the scope of the sub and serving a different agenda.
One of the TRP sidebar things I disagree with is the bit about men being the true romantics and women being incapable of true love. Beyond the obvious no true Scotsman fallacy, the truth as I see it is that there is no such thing as unconditional love at all. All love is conditional. Anyone who has ever had to use "tough love" with a parent, child, or sibling understands this.
I don't really have a problem with the sub being openly polygamist, but I don't think there is enough acknowledgement that humans tend to pair off. I don't believe we are biologically monogamist, but neither are we biologically polygamist. We're somewhere in-between. The sub tends to come down too hard against long term relationships. I think we have a strong instinct to form long-term mating pairs, and "oneitis" is evidence of that. Oneitis is bad when you're stuck on someone you can't get, or who is using you for their purposes, but a long-term mating bond is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is a good and necessary thing for family and child-rearing.
I think a lot of the red pill "theory" starts from a strong idea but is extrapolated too far and posters often find themselves on thin ice. I think they do this with Briffault's law, AWALT, the wall, alpha/beta, etc. If you are careful with the scope of these ideas, then I believe the the red pill has real value in understanding the dynamics of dating and mating. Often times posters on the sub are not careful with the scope and arrive at conclusions that are over-broad and not well-supported by their premises. The red pill doesn't have to be airtight to be useful. And it's fine to shoot from the hip, so long as you know you're speculating. Believing it is airtight when it is not can cause you problems.
Furthermore, to add on the above, too many posters on the sub try to turn red pill ideas into a more comprehensive philosophy of life, which in my opinion it is not. There's nothing wrong with trying to figure life out. A lot of reddit is young, and still searching for answers and even searching for their own identities. I think even calling it a praxeology is going a little too far. It is important to know, to really know that you are not your sex drive. It is a part of you, but it is not all of you.