No. I was referring to

  "Its rotational energy was spent"

or rephrased

  "Tidal forces cause a lot of stress on celestial bodies",
  but not with the Earth-Moon system because the Moon's
  "rotational energy was spent".

raverbashing's point as I read it was that while tidal forces matter on celestial bodies (i.e. not in the Earth-Moon system) they no longer matter in the Earth-Moon system because the Moon is tidally locked.

I'm not disputing that the Moon is tidally locked, just the consequences in terms of tidal forces. But perhaps the issue (and maybe err) is in confusing rotational energy with orbital energy and the relationship to tidal forces.

You misunderstood me

> "Tidal forces cause a lot of stress on celestial bodies",

Correct

> but not with the Earth-Moon system because the Moon's "rotational energy was spent".

Not now. But the Moon is still stretched tidally (and permanently in that position)

It causes a lot of stress when the tidal pull happens while the body rotates (w.r.t their main "puller" - the Moon rotates, but not relative to the Earth)

And this pulling/stretching is what caused the Moon to stop rotating

Maybe Wikipedia explains it better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Ahh. I interpreted more along the lines of the rephrasing: "... but not on the Moon because the Moon's 'rotational energy was spent'" - that is, no claim about Earth not still being under significant stress.

Taken as a whole, I read the comment as possibly along the lines of "This seems reasonable (or obvious) - you end up with dead lifeless geologically inert celestial bodies like the moon if you take away the stress of tidal forces / (varying) gravitational pull", as an example to contrast/compare against.