TheRedPill tells us that solipsism and hamstering are primarily women's problems, and that anecdotal evidence reigns supreme^[1][2] . Could this discourage appropriate criticism, thus leading to a far less logical space?

Here are ways that it could.

  1. "It does not matter that all the evidence is against me."

Example,

The purple pill debate sub spent most of their time trying to explain why we're wrong. My main contention was: I don't really care, this was my experience. They couldn't fathom that I could hold my experience higher than their solipsistic statistical analysis.

First "solipsistic statistical analysis" is notable, because statistical analysis is the opposite of solipsism.

Second, this is arguing that reality or truth is less important than personal experience. That's a perfect example of solipsism, elevating personal experience to a privileged position that trumps other evidence.

If no amount of verifiable evidence is persuasive, there's no reason to discuss any evidence at all.

  1. "Debate is impossible and it's your fault."

Example,

This is exactly why women are ignored when it comes to any sort of rational discussion.

A radfem telling someone they cannot debate? Hysterical. Spin that wheel darlin'

And,

With regard to abstract, deep or philosophical discussion women vary rarely have anything to offer. Women are emotional creatures so the result of her participation will always be a decline in the intellectuality of discourse.

And,

Never ask a woman for advice on anything besides maybe fashion, and never let a woman influence you with her flawed and shockingly incomplete body of knowledge. Seek out a woman for her beauty, femininity, sexuality, and pleasing, low-maintenance personality, but not for her intelligence.

And, of /r/PurplePillDebate,

Their goal is to use hyperbole, dishonest debate tactics, and shame in order to quote us out of context so they can fuel their circlejerk.

when debating with bluepillers, they always start off with dishonest debate tactics.

I have to agree, after just one day on this new debate sub, it's already a pile of trash.

These are notables because they all explicitly argue that women should not be part of the conversation.

Define your opposition as irrational and there is no reason or chance to engage in rational discussion with them.

  1. "You're just a hamster anyway."

Example,

Women are upset that we don't care they don't understand us, and nothing of value was lost.

If groups of people are less valuable, then sincerely communicating with them is unimportant.

I believe RedPill's narrative promotes illogical discussion by making their position unassailable by evidence, and assuring us its detractors are irrational and unimportant.