I don't think it does a terrible job of explaining things but it's a bit waffly I think for the sake of clicks and I just glanced through it because I know most of the shit that's gone on in the red pill movement already.
If there's one thing I will criticise is you can simplify what happened to the red pill movement pretty easily these days just by saying it's filled with church grifters among other things. I think what isn't talked about nearly enough is how especially with these podcasters that have mysteriously popped up over the years I have a deep suspicion of Muslim glowie involvement. There seems to be a concerted push by the red pill movement these days to get young men going towards religion in one form or another and the red pillers don't seem to care which religion they go for.
I do agree with the general criticisms of the new red pill movement, because it does very much fall in line with the tradcuck beliefs of how men should give themselves up to women instead of standing up to their behaviour and that makes them 'alphas' for doing that. Which is where a lot of the strange artificial looking "Hurr durr get married and have a family that will show them" with zero mention of all the problems men face in that situation with family court, mental health and suicide etc. not to mention false accusations and paternity fraud.
It was sort of an interesting read, but also pretentious, navelgazing and meandering.
My original point is that you've failed as an author if you continue to use a term like "The Red Pill movement" without explicitly defining to an uninformed reader precisely what the label means/stands for.
Particularly if the entire premise of the article is "Old Man Yells at Cloud" style "2024 TRP isn't as great as the 2010s TRP of my youth".
I don't think it does a terrible job of explaining things but it's a bit waffly I think for the sake of clicks and I just glanced through it because I know most of the shit that's gone on in the red pill movement already.
If there's one thing I will criticise is you can simplify what happened to the red pill movement pretty easily these days just by saying it's filled with church grifters among other things. I think what isn't talked about nearly enough is how especially with these podcasters that have mysteriously popped up over the years I have a deep suspicion of Muslim glowie involvement. There seems to be a concerted push by the red pill movement these days to get young men going towards religion in one form or another and the red pillers don't seem to care which religion they go for.
I do agree with the general criticisms of the new red pill movement, because it does very much fall in line with the tradcuck beliefs of how men should give themselves up to women instead of standing up to their behaviour and that makes them 'alphas' for doing that. Which is where a lot of the strange artificial looking "Hurr durr get married and have a family that will show them" with zero mention of all the problems men face in that situation with family court, mental health and suicide etc. not to mention false accusations and paternity fraud.
It was sort of an interesting read, but also pretentious, navelgazing and meandering.
My original point is that you've failed as an author if you continue to use a term like "The Red Pill movement" without explicitly defining to an uninformed reader precisely what the label means/stands for.
Particularly if the entire premise of the article is "Old Man Yells at Cloud" style "2024 TRP isn't as great as the 2010s TRP of my youth".