According to the last discussion on one of my submissions, blue pillers believe that critiquing the red pill on moral argument and character assessment is productive and fair if red pillers are morally wrong.

Soulcakeduck writes:

If it's possible to be morally wrong, then moral critiques are fair and necessary, even if some people are not good at receiving them.

I will suggest that moral critique will always do damage to a discussion between people who do not agree on a common moral framework, and an outside group forcing their morals on another group serves no other purpose than the one I suggested in my last post:

I believe that people's attempt at shaming red pill men for what's written on the red pill is an example of this very reaction, and can only serve to stifle discussion, both good and bad.

Until both groups could reconcile morality, there is no purpose to moral critique that doesn't amount to shaming and stifling discussion.

The accusation of misogyny, for instance, does not become a valid critique, because it in itself is poorly defined and emotionally weighted.

Who among us would want to be known to our families, friends, and coworkers as misogynists? Yet, neither group will even agree on just what counts as misogyny, so using the word in context of a critique must be being used as a weapon of shame.

I think that moral shaming techniques have been used throughout history to create groups of topics that should not be spoken about and amounts to the equivalent of thought crime when it brands an entire topic as misogynistic. I also think that the term misogyny is misplaced in a group dedicated to finding ways to have sex with women.

If the red pill's critique of female sexual strategy is considered misogyny, then it must extend to critique of the red pill, which is male sexual strategy, and therefore any usage of the term misogyny in reference thereof must also be considered misandry.

Topic of discussion, is morality absolute and therefore validating of the blue pill's usage of moral judgement without the need for an agreed upon framework of morality?

Bonus Question: I asked SoulcakeDuck: A man is running through the woods. I have not met this man before, but I decide to shoot him and he dies. Am I morally wrong?