@adam-l

The idea is that you can have an idea about what's "right" or "ideal" but not apply it in your personal life

Therein lies the difference, and I can't believe you don't see it.

In the case of men who unplugged while married, we warn other men based on actions vs. consequences, pragmatic advice rather than anything about "right" or "ideal". It's similar to a guy who lost a hand swimming in crocodile infested waters warning others not to make the same mistake.

In fact, one of the biggest rules at both TRP and MRP is against moralizing. We discuss actions and consequences. "If you do this, here's what's most likely to happen."

None of us who are married are going to tell other men "it's objectively morally wrong to get married, so don't you dare do it".

On the other hand, Lennon, McCartney, Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Bernie Sanders, the Clintons, the Obamas, and other champaign socialists will preach to those of us who are working class how it's a moral imperative that we share our meager incomes with those who refuse to work, while sitting on vast fortunes and owning multiple houses and flying in private jets.

It's the worst kind of hypocrisy, and they're all pieces of shit.

@Vermillion-Rx

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.