One frequent criticism of TRP is that red pillers themselves don't know what it is. Generously, this is used to suggest that TRP isn't very substantive. Less generously, it's used to accuse red pillers of playing fast and loose with what TRP "really" means, simply claiming whatever's convenient at the time.

It might seem persuasive to quote two red pillers that disagree with one another, but an article I ran across points out that these sorts of internal disagreements happen in all sorts of schools of thought:

This is not so much vagueness as disagreement. There is a broad range of views. The views of Kropotkin are not the same as the views of Lenin. Edward Bellamy and William Morris had competing views of society, Gandhi had his own peculiar brand of socialism that included a role for private industry and was not even particularly egalitarian. There is no definitive answer to this question just as there would be no definitive answer to the question “How large does conservatism say the state should be?” What socialists share is a set of common sentiments about the need for change, the desirability of worker ownership, and the problems of concentrated private capital. They place themselves in a long line of social movements that wish for a better and more equal world. Beyond that, you will find some who are vague, but some who have very specific ideas, just as with any political philosophy... A broad range of views on the way in which a set of beliefs should be actualized is something one would expect in exactly the same way as Christians will have different answers on the question “How should a Christian act?” despite agreeing on certain fundamentals.

Internal disagreements do not necessarily signal lack of substance or lack of intellectual honesty, unless one believes that every major political philosophy as well as every major religion all lack substance and intellectual honesty. Two people can share the same fundamental beliefs (e.g. small government) but have significant disagreements over how to best make those beliefs concrete.

The last bolded portion, about Christianity, also made me think of criticism of TRP as a cult. Cults tend to not tolerate the level of internal disagreement that the schools of thought listed in the article tolerate. You can have far more wide-ranging opinions of the sacred texts if you're a Methodist than if you're a Scientologist. Therefore, observations that red pillers often disagree with one another on how best to implement their core beliefs is strong evidence that TRP is far from a cult.