Sometimes I see posts from people that want to entertain democratic debate within the red pill community. These people are typically people who are not well versed in RP theory. They come from an angle "of explain this to me" evoking a response of "read the damn sidebar." Or a "should RP be run like this?" angle - which when reported to a mod (keep reporting things, by the way) incites a near-immediate ban.
Yes, like Hitler, we quite literally ban anyone who questions the administration.
(Perfect for quoting out of context, by the way.)
The well-intentioned questioners (rather than the shills who thrive on debate as a platform for subversion) tend to be rational men who have failed to actualize an effective sexual strategy and thus have ended up in the red pill community.
Logical Abstraction vs. Practical Reality
The funny thing is, despite many of red pill theory's seeming counter intuitiveness to the liberally raised, sexually unsuccessful, albeit intellectual man; these ideas have, through real world experimentation and cross-demographic corroboration, proven to be effective when implemented.
Nevertheless, the rational inconsistencies of "what seems fair" vs. "what is practicably effective" bother the intellectual mind like a thorn in the ass. Rather than the less intelligent among us, who, perhaps in a turn of irony, are far more easily able to learn the theory and apply it because they "go along with whatever works, regardless of why it works, because it makes life better."
The intellectual is paralyzed by AN UNRELENTING NEED to understand why certain ideas work, he HAS TO understand the underlying behaviors in play and FEELS COMPELLED to essentially question our ideas and values from a logical perspective over and over again, regardless of their efficiency.
Typically, men who do this also lack the real world experiences they would have gained from applying RP theory in their dealings socially, and with women (who, from a masculine viewpoint, are irrational themselves.)
I have noticed as we have grown, many of you are particularly younger than those who started this community, and thus have little but an intellectual frame of reference to articulate your ideas (that, or you're young AND stupid and thus have nothing really worth listening to.)
The fact of the matter is, in doing this, you are arguing from a point of unsubstantiated abstraction, like a theoretical scientist whose ideas fall flat in practice because they bring about no tangible, actionable results. You challenge what works out of pedanticism, and then produce no results of your own. This does nothing but dilute the community and we are not tolerant of it as such.
We don't care about logical perfectionism, we care about optimizing the lives of men and building a system of thought that will aid in this endeavor. To argue RP theory rationally, one must learn the theory, attempt to apply it to the real world, and then subject their rational mind to their experiences as a point of reference. It is an imperfect form of investigation, but it is, for the purpose of being useful to men, an accurate one.
Nevertheless, borderline autistic debates about the merits and demerits of red pill theory do not serve the community, they hamper it by becoming too abstract and polarized. This polarization leads to point scoring, it fractures the community, and it does not help men become more in-control and actualized versions of themselves free of feminine primary social conditioning. Which, alongside optimizing sexual strategy, is the primary intent of red pill theory.
As such, anything that undermines this is not tolerated.
In light of this, TRP proper will never facilitate debate about the values we hold, why we hold them, as well as far out philosophical notions such as "should we hold them?" - This is deemed concern trolling and will result, quite rationally unreasonably, but for the intent of our goals: most reasonably, in a ban.
Regardless, we are sympathetic to the intellectual pondering of the intellectual class as many of us among the ruling government of the subreddit are intellectual in nature ourselves. This is why,
for as long /r/purplepilldebate gives red pillers a voice and does not prevent our membership from asserting it's viewpoint, we will endorse it as an appropriate place to intellectually nitpick at red pill theory. we recommend you head on over to /r/pillscollide/. So if you want to nitpick at red pill theory, go there and do that - but do not do it here if you like posting here.
How we rule:
We are not a democracy, we are a SCHOOL of thought and WE DO NOT WELCOME the opinions of those unversed in our ideas. Likewise, we do not welcome the opinions of those who understand or at least think they understand our ideas, but nevertheless want to do their very best to subvert our value system anyway.
If TRP is ruled by any form of government, it would be the philosopher king government as outlined by Plato's ideal city-state of Kallipolis. Those who are most versed in RP theory and have it's continued survival and best interest at heart are those who rule this community. We will, under no uncertain terms, ruthlessly exile any we deem a threat to the the integrity and values of the community. If you disagree with the community, simply leave it; we do not owe you recompense for your grievances in the form of explanation.
Why we hate democracy:
The masses who would swarm this place with their democratic self-importance would undermine our values with their sheer numbers alone. Their numbers having been inculcated with a set of values that runs contrary to our minority, unpopular and "controversial" view to begin with.
They would disregard that which is actionable, beneficial and pragmatically profitable in order to sustain the world views they have already been taught to hold. As such, as much as we'd like to be reasonable, we cannot be, for our detractors are not.
Any form of open debate we hold, any form of scrutiny we entertain, effectively does nothing but undermine the philosophy and it's growth. It invites those who have a preconceived agenda to destroy this philosophical system and fracture the community to achieve this goal - to do so. In essence, we must be ruthless with a well-intentioned totalitarianism if we wish our system of values to thrive, survive, and continue to help men across the globe.
So read this carefully, remember it, and internalize it: This is not a democratic sub and it never will be. If we "deprive you your freedom of speech" - tough. Our community, our rules. We rule with an iron fist, albeit, a benevolent one. As much as we can understand your logic, we cannot respect it. It is not in the best interest of the community's survival to entertain all and any hypothetical intellectual tangents that are thrown our way; or to open ourselves to meandering scrutiny. If your reasoning is not backed by an intent to further the philosophy, but merely tries to scrutinize it, then it is a detriment to the philosophy we cannot tolerate.
Why this sounds unreasonable and why we sound "unfair":
We cannot be as reasonable as we'd like to be. We cannot be as fair as we'd like to be. These things would be a weakness.
"But surely, those who debate the intricacies of our most prominently asked questions are destined to receive the most refined, and therefore, the most useful answer?"
Unfortunately, that is not so. This is the problem:
By entertaining debate, we endlessly perpetuate debate, and instead of teaching our values and helping men, all we end up doing is arguing with people who reject our values and wish to paralyze our school of thought. We end up defending ourselves instead of helping people, giving us no time to continue to formulate our ideas and refine our theories within OUR OWN FRAMEWORK instead of theirs.
Effectively, the sub must "hold frame" and tell anyone outside our frame of reasoning to get lost. We cannot and will not exhaust our mental reserves arguing with people, when our underlying directive is to improve men's lives. If people don't agree with us, we don't care, don't tell us, and consider yourself an unwelcome pest for as long as you continue to populate our ranks regardless of our wishes.
Call it an echo chamber if you will, we care not for name calling and such labels will not incite a change in moderation policy. We cannot and will not sacrifice our values simply to entertain the democratic and logical sensibilities of the intellectual class torn between what makes sense rationally, and what works in reality. To do so is to make ourselves prone to vitiating our values in the name of "fair debate." Likewise it gives disingenuous shills a foot in the door to take part in the theatrics; to present themselves as pseudo-intellectuals who represent a credible challenge, but wish for nothing other than to suffocate us with nonsense.
In essence, we cannot be fair, because we are outnumbered, and our opponents, those who disdain us, they don't play fair. They attempt to disrupt and subvert, and thus we must respond in kind by doing the same to their protests.
We must dictate how the sub is run, and we must be benevolently ruthless in this endeavor, lest those who are less versed in RP, or our enemies, dilute the philosophy on Reddit and fracture the larger manosphere community as a result.
For the sake of the continued preservation of our ideas, ideas which have immeasurably benefited the lives of thousands of men - we cannot cave to the notion that democracy is a superlatively superior form of governance. For us, as a community, it isn't, and it is unlikely it ever will be. If you don't like how we rule, then leave, because we want you not.
Edit; As eloquently stated by /u/CopperFox3c:
That said, I think it is important to emphasize that we do encourage debate and discussion here, just so long as it remains within [the] bounds [of TRP.]
The world must be viewed with different lenses for different purposes. The world is too complex to be viewed with simply one lens. In matters of family and social dynamics, we value the RP lens as most accurate.