Calling out Lennon, or any of the others you mention, as a hypocrite, is a moral judgement.
The "no moralizing" principle is supposed to hold for TheRedPill as a sexual strategy forum. It doesn't apply to worldwide politics, not only because politics is another issue altogether, but also because politics by its nature has morals at its epicenter.
So, again, you allow yourself the slack to make moral judgements, while denying it to others.
I believe it's a feature of moral reasoning: it is generally biased towards the in-group, so a blind spot by definition.
@First-light and if you are even less lucky she won't let you go, but will relentlessly seek you out. Why did you leave me, you heartless bastard?
In fact, one of the biggest rules at both TRP and MRP is against moralizing.
Indeed man, but that's what you've been doing and failing to see. You've got a major blind spot there.
But I'm not to die on this hill, so I'll... Let It Be.
Let me know what you think of my post, Meet Johnathan, the gynocentric psychotherapist
Typo claimed that Lennon was "a piece of shit" for several reasons. One was that he was a communist while rich, which he saw as hypocritical.
I tried to evoke his personal status, to make the point that it is no moral crime having a discrepancy between your personal life and your ideology.
Typo doesn't really need to answer for his personal choices in order to have a credible gender theory.
The main problam, as I see it, is that while Typo gives himself a slack (correctly) and denies giving the same slack to others (Lennon in this case), he can't acknowledge that.
That's all.
I'm not claiming i consistency of his conduct, and of course I'm not idiot (nor rude) enough to really suggest that he divorces.
if he was thoroughly red pilled, told men not to get married, and then got married anyway
Not even this would be "hypocritical" or "inconsistent." Archwinger is a case in point.
The idea is that you can have an idea about what's "right" or "ideal" but not apply it in your personal life. That's because there are different levels of organisation, ranging from the molecular to the global, and ideas for one don't transfer neatly to the other. (In addition, of course, to the issue of preconditions not met).
As another example, there were some billionaires a while back that collectively asked "tax us more". They were grasping that the tax exemption of the ultra-rich is destroying the foundations of the society on which their very wealth depended. They didn't just "give away their wealth" - that would be stupid. They were arguing for a systemic change, not a one-off, impressive act of philanthropy.
Similarly, you can argue that it's stupid for men to get married, but your personal situation (in the case of marriage, mainly the want of children as an existential issue) make it so that you do marry yourself. There's no "contradiction" here, because ideology and life don't perfectly align.
Read More(And you've probably just witnessed a philosophical argument made in about the fewest words in history).
@Vermillion-Rx they are not.
Like being born a capitalist and adopting a socialist ideology.
That's the whole point I'm trying to make.
@Typo-MAGAshiv maybe then one shouldn't have to just give away all his wealth in order for his support for a different kind of social organisation to be credible, no?
@Typo-MAGAshiv well, you could separate. It's not that you hav kids.