None of it is valid. All of it is hate.

The Red Pill has blown the lid off the women dating strategy. They don't like that. It threatens their survival. They are desperate. They will say and do anything, no matter what it takes, to get men back onto the plantation.

Bunch of people who took the red pill and either mentally masturbated to the point of inaction and terrible results and thus got burnt out on it (instead of learning TRP the right way: through practice and self-reflection) or found it and due to being horribly plugged in, couldn't manage to let it sit, and vomited it back up.

Let's disect their main stickied post: "red pill detox first aid start here" which is essentially their gay ass sidebar.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/ho4cvx/red_pill_detox_first_aid_kit_start_here/

Note: all the below headers are their links. Spoiler alert, they're dumb as fuck

It's a Scientific Fact that Hypergamy does not exist

I clicked the link, and not suprisingly they claim there is a "bunch of research proving hypergamy wrong" . The OP of this shitty ass post quotes a bunch of paragraph excerpts saying hypergamy doesn't exist, thinking that appeal to authority of people no one fucking knows is "proof" enough.

No stats, no p-values, no empirical support provided. The OP just tries to prove it via random excerpts and it doesn't appear all that scientific.

Ask yourself: Do you really have results with TRP?

I'm not gonna read it. A lot of guys who find TRP treat the sidebar like a Bible and then consume hundreds of dollars worth of the books we recommend to the point of extreme mental masturbation, which hurts their game.

Problem isn't that TRP gives bad results, it's that a lot of mediocre game while blue-pilled is better than mental masturbation while RP to the point of not meeting women or sperging out when meeting them because you're trying to force a ton of TRP principles like a sperg.

AF/BB logic questioned by science

As a researcher myself (my job), OP's interpretation of the study he gives sickens my research sensibilities.

1) OPs choice in study to use as scientific proof and his interpretation of it is shit. Study talks about fingertip length and testosterone and how men with more T spend more money on dates, this violating alpha fux/beta bux

2) OP deciding to re-invent the term higher testosterone to just be synonymous with "alpha male" when citing an empirical work is shameful in a research context. OP re-inventing terms to fit his narrative, and two, the study doesn't even address whether the dates themselves are great, only that men with higher T tend to spend more money on dates.

3) maybe men with more T make more money. And thus can spend more. OP either willfully defies that there could be alternative explanations for the finding or just wants a narrative. Either way this OP is a retarded nimrod.

OP should get a physical therapist to help with that severe stretch he did to make that post

No, your girlfriend doesn't want to cheat on you with a more alpha guy (based on science)

OP brings up "proof" but in the same idiotic post about the question, says "Now is this true? Well, nobody really knows."

What the fuck OP, you have proof but no one actually knows the answer. Dumbass.

AWALT debunked (Based on Science) - No, not all women are like that

OPs post is just all over the place. Tries to prove AWALT wrong by using nuance in women's varying relationship goals to prove it. OP fundamentally doesn't seem to understand what AWALT is to begin with. No one said AWALT means women are the same and OP seems think that like a tard

Hard to disprove something you don't understand to begin with. OP is too retarded to understand the concept he critiques.

Against Dread Game (Based on Science)

OPs own description of dread makes it clear he doesn't really know fully what dread is, doesn't seem to understand that dread varies by level, and also seems to misunderstand why it's used

just another dumbass OP in that sub that is trying to disprove something they never fully understood to begin with and offers proof that is going to be limited in scope.

Honestly, I can't analyze any more of this sidebar.

Their sub is obsessed with "scientific proof" that TRP is wrong and chock full of confirmation bias and misunderstanding of TRP principles to begin with.

So many of these threads use fat stretches to link subjects together and I haven't seen one solid "proof" on that sub.

Sub is full of nimrods that misunderstand research

Basically this forum is full of members and run by blue and black pillers. Its just called red to reel you in and sell you viagra.

I'm the 1st one to discover it and warn everyone ab it last 6y.

Be safe out there