Would it be fair to say there are two types of red pill men?

There is the lower beta/omega who struggled to get anything other condescension from women pre-game. A celebrity example from our world would probably be Roosh.

Then there is the man whose success with women has been moderate to alpha. In almost all cases however he has found the red pill due to infidelity. An example would probably be Rollo.

Beta man has felt bitter about every aspect of femininity, since his natural (or nurtured) personality has caused no women to consider intimacy with him. He winces when he hears cheated-on man say "All women are sluts" as none ever were with him.

Cheated-on man is bitter about women's lack of loyalty. His natural (or nurtured) personality caused women to reward him with intimacy, but not fidelity. He may have harboured a more deluded, fairy-tale view of women for a lot longer than beta-man due to women's relatively constant affections.

Beta-man struggles to sympathise with cheated-on man's tales of female betrayal, thinking roughly "So you've been getting a relatively steady stream of sex and attention from various women, in your horniest years, and are moaning?"

Cheated-on man cannot fathom just how much of scrotumless loser beta-man was around women, and really struggles to relate to the subsequent loneliness, inadequacy and sexual frustration that was part of beta man's life?

I believe this DELIBERATELY simplistic dichotomy informs much of what we see on the red pill.

(Disclaimer: Please don't tell me you're neither. Let me just say I preemptively believe you. Hard cases make bad law)