I'm responding directly to this post: https://archive.today/cU5l9 in which the OP used a character from House of Cards as an example of TheRedPill in action.

I responded to the post by pointing out that theRedPill shouldn't use fictional examples. I got some up votes, but most of the comments criticized me for various reasons.

So, here's my apologia.

I understand that fiction is an important way of conveying one's culture and ideals to other people. Human beings have used fiction to convey their values and explain their ideology throughout history, from texts like the Torah, Bible and Quran, to texts like the Iliad, the Annales Cambriae, 1001 Nights and Beowulf. Writers as diverse as Friedrich Nietzshe to Ayn Rand have used fiction as a medium to convey their ideology and philosophy.

The difference between the RedPill and the texts that I've describe is that the RedPill attempts to provide real world advice to solve a real world problem. There's nothing abstract about the RedPill. One could even argue that it's non-ideological insofar as it's purpose is to achieve certain real world results, i.e. more sex.

For example, suppose Charles Darwin attempted to prove his Theory of Evolution, not in The Origin of Species, but by writing a work of fiction, or if instead of writing Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Newton had written a fictional story to convey his science. We probably wouldn't remember them today. So, why is it that Nietzsche can express his philosophy in Also sprach Zarathustra, but Darwin and Newton chose to convey their ideas through non-fiction? The answer is, for Nietzsche what's important is the the thought process, and the conclusions are irrelevant. I challenge you to find two philosophers who think zarathustra means the same thing. For Darwin and Newton, the process is important, but ultimately the value of the work is the conclusion, assuming it was reached by scientifically valid process. This is the difference between science and philosophy. The RedPill is science.

A great example of this point is a book called, The Left Hand of Darkness, by Ursula K. LeGuin. In this book she basically studies gender roles by placing the human characters in a genderless society. It's a work of fiction; LeGuin isn't trying to make any conclusions about gender, she's trying trying to explore what gender means, what are the implications, how does it affect society. If her purpose was to prove that one gender is superior to another gender, then using the Left Hand of Darkness as an example would be nonsense.

Suppose I wanted to convince a religious person that the Theory of Evolution is true. Do you think it would be a good strategy for me to quote works of fiction, like Outbreak, War of the Worlds, or Jurassic Park, all of which dealt with evolution as a theme? Of course not.

If you're trying to prove that TheRedPill is a legitimate sexual strategy in the real world, you have to use real world examples. Suppose, I write a book about a short, fat, ugly man, who goes around showing women his "feminine side", he cries, he expresses his emotions, and they all have sex with him because he's so "emotionally available" and he "understands them so well". Then, suppose i cite this as proof that the RedPill doesn't work. There's really only one criticism that anybody would need to make: That's fiction, the real world doesn't work like that. When a critic of the RedPill sees someone cite to a fictional example of the RedPill, the only criticism they need make is: that's fiction, the real world doesn't work like that. You prove the validity of the RedPill by citing real world examples, just like Darwin proved his theory by showing real world evidence.

tl:dr: The RedPill should confine it's examples to real world situations, just like a scientific text would never cite to a fictional example to support it's conclusions. The RedPill provides real world strategy for a real world problem. It's examples should be real world examples.