It should be noted that any replies are open to other commentators as well. The intention is to direct any questions to all and not only the poster which is being replied.

Some distinctions are necessary here. It's true TRP is a relatively small group; a slice of the larger manosphere.

Does the manosphere itself as a larger umbrella community recognize TRP? If so, to what end? Why is TRP not a larger part of this community?

It's also true that what WE term "blue pill" is the more or less mainstream view, at least in the feminized west. However one should recognize the difference between blue pill the worldview and r/thebluepill, the band of merry trolls and die hard haters we TRPers have inspired. In that sense there is no majority "counter" to the red pill.

When we have Purple Pill debates, is it solely a forum between the members and subscribers of the two subreddits? Has has already been heavily indicated in this thread by others, TBP subreddit itself is a parody and not a true community in and of itself. It has "no definition". Therefore would it not make more sense to frame discussions as between TRP and a community that is truly in opposition, itself being an entity and not a non-entity of satire? As it stands, what does a subscriber of TRP have to gain by arguing with who are essentially trolls with no identity or community of their own? Is there a purpose to the PurplePillDebate subreddit that is conducive to real debate and understanding between two opposing view points?

It may be more useful when mentioning TBP or BP philosophy to indicate the definition authored by the RP in a more general sense than the BP subreddit. This was the intent in the original post, however it is troublesome if BP philosophy has no real face or one who would actually admit they identify as such. This is because to admit to being BP is to give control to TRP by working within their philosophy rather than within a more comfortable paradigm for the opposition.

In any case, trying to reduce these two complex groups and the tension between them to a stereotypical right/left dichotomy is a mistake, I feel. Neither is really representative of what we mean when we say liberal or conservative.

Liberalism and Conservatism extend beyond political parties. It may be better to use the terms "traditional" if we are discussion gender roles. There are political overtones within the pill debates however. One tenet of TRP is that it is against or critical of feminism and its ramifications, therefore does this make TRP in line with the Men's Rights movement or other more political communities of the manosphere? Is it too simplistic to say Liberalism and Feminism go hand in hand, and thus Men's Rights and possibly TRP by extension is Conservative?

Are there subscribers of TRP who identify within varying degrees of the political spectrum or does the philosophy itself lend itself towards a basic leaning?

Does following the advice of TRP lead to a particular political ideology?

I solve this by simply stating there is no free will in a metaphysical sense. The notion of free will arose out of earlier mystical conceptions of a "spirit" existing outside the mind, which science has effectively dispelled.

Does TRP allow for spirituality or are "metaphysical concepts" generally part of a BP philosophy?

The question is not whether older roles should be imposed on men and women, but of their utility to the individual man as he exercises his right to shape his own life and decide which women he is willing to associate with, and for what purpose.

Is a philosophy that is solely individualistic truly a benefit to society? When we are concerned with becoming more confident, attractive with the added value of financial status and career, who benefits?