What is the difference between calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists?

When I first responded, I figured I had taken things a bit too far off-topic, but some questions have been left open, and I hope you would not mind answering.

"(Their unspoken wishes, not the fake ones they say they want)."

I mentioned pretty clearly that I accept the Red Pill view of primal nature. I completely disagree, but I still think I made pretty clear you do not have to point out to me what Red Pill thinks about the female subconscious. I have read about the Red Pill opinion of how women would be incapable of certain aspects of love, typically "supported" by descriptions of their conduct in situations of hardship, and still do not see why Red Pill people refuse to accept that - independent of what the subconscious nature of women actually is like - women, like all humans, are capable of making choices based on long-term goals rather than short-term satisfaction in all situations of their life.

Relatedly, I really wonder who you think you are to be able to judge "what [women] really want" by any other way than investigating into the desires of the individual person. And if you now argue that such analysis is what you do to fulfill "unspoken wishes", then I have no idea what the Red Pill has to do with that.

"Because that's your choice."

It is, and I have to admit you have surprised me with how accurately you have phrased that, but that is not an argument against how the Red Pill could provide a suggestion for such a choice. And the reason I asked why it did not do that is because then the Red Pill is not a philosophy - which is what you called it.

"Why should somebody dedicate their lives to others' happiness?"

Because that is the desire that comes with, and defines, love and I endeavour to realise that desire. Also because paying an effort for other persons' wishes is the only action of which I never doubt the value. With my own tasks I can never know whether my priorities are set well. The time I invest into other people's goals or delight is not subject to their priorities, because they only have to worry about how they spend their own time, and not subject to mine, because it is not time devoted to my own purposes anyways, so I can trust in the other person's motives.

But why do I have to justify this? I thought the Red Pill would be applicable to anyone's goals.

"They want to do something nice and gain their favor.

Of course, trp would teach you not to, because it's a bad strategy."

Strategy for what? "Gaining favor"? What do you even mean by that as the motivation to doing nice things?

Doing nice things to people is the only strategy for the objective of making other people happy.

"[...] but to try to reduce it to mean nothing is disingenuous.

[...] Well, I did falsify your nonsense."

...And yet you have not mentioned anything about how the Red Pill would be a philosophy, or just generally what the Red Pill is [if "not a philosophy but something similar" should apply]. In fact, all you have said has made the Red Pill seem only even more like nothing but PickUp-Artistry for people who invented another word for their business because they did not enjoy being considered manipulative.

"Sounds personal to me."

Then, please, enlighten me, what is the subject of Red Pill "philosophy", if not what I listed there.

/r/PurplePillDebate Thread