Here's an article that helps explain what being "emotionally damaged" looks like:

https://www.lovepanky.com/my-life/reflections/signs-of-emotional-damage

At its core, emotionally damaged ≠ morally/ethically corrupt, but many men are fooled into not only judging women this way, but other men as well, which can lead to consequences being dished out unnecessarily (and wrongly, especially if other biases and distortions are wrapped into your decisions), isolation, feelings of worthlessness, etc. Many Red Pill coaches conflate the two, but shouldn't.

Just because one cries more than another, or gets upset at being falsely accused of things, or becomes unstable when their trauma is triggered, does not mean they aren't also on the better side of the good/bad morality spectrum. Someone can be a very "good" person who occasionally does "wrong" (or actively tries), but is very "emotionally damaged" from trauma that they could neither escape from or control.

You can still be a generally "good" person and also experience flashbacks of former violence that upset you significantly. These are things you learn in therapy and how to work through your trauma, but many coaches conveniently avoid talking about this, which I think keeps many Red Pillers 'stuck' in a loop of processing (and anger).

~

"If you think of unethical behaviour as something on a spectrum, and goodness as something difficult to even interpret with full confidence in every situation, you can say goodness and corruption is not like a “yes/no” binary condition but more like a question of degrees or dimensions that don't always mesh with each other. Actually it's a good sign to be asking yourself the question, since the people who are more extreme in their corruption probably either think they are paragons of virtue (and are totally deluded) or are amoral and don't give a damn how they are morally judged.

What do we mean by something on a spectrum? You could choose the wrong thing through faulty reasoning yet the best intentions. You could choose the right thing but fail to achieve it through lack of social skills. You could know what the right thing is and want to do it, but procrastinate. You could know the right thing and decide to do the wrong thing after some internal debate, and feel guilty after. You could choose the wrong thing all along, and be skilled enough to get your way, and be completely satisfied with your choice.

Each one of these is perhaps worse than the one before. What are your general intentions and life-goals, anyway? Do you seek wisdom? Just a few personal goods like a family, food, shelter, clothing, friendships, a good book now and then? Or are you living with an aim to prove to yourself or someone else that you can be a prominent individual in your society? Perhaps your aspiration is to go into politics and you still believe in improving the world? Maybe you can't ignore your bigger life goals in judging how you try to get there.

We aren't very good at knowing when we're achieving moral perfection. Someone could live a blameless life by the standards of his own society, but looking back 200 years later people might say that society was deeply corrupt and so by implication were all the inhabitants. Look at the history of our thinking as a civilization: torturing witches and heretics was the height of virtue, then the slave trade was fine because the slaves were conveniently subhuman. Now we have second thoughts about the billions of factory farm animals who suffer at every moment for our supermarket shelves, or the way we seem to be rapidly degrading the only planet we have. And millions of people still starve when we might save them.

Can any of us say we are morally blameless? Don't we all have dirty hands? -Stephan Hare