Don't Give Voice to Idiots

Much of the so-called “manosphere” has built its own vocabulary to explain behaviors — especially in the affective and social realms. One of the most popular examples is the idea of the female rationalization hamster, often described in a caricatured way and reduced to a single group. It’s an effective and funny way to explain how a woman thinks. And I don’t think discussing it is bad — unless it’s with the wrong audience, on public accounts, and of course, with the goal of spreading the wrong idea that only women are “system-controlled femoids.”

While there is some value in trying to name behavioral patterns, the problem begins when these explanations cease to be analytical tools and start being used as emotional crutches or as a form of simplistic generalization.

In recent years, this kind of discourse has spread disorderly, especially on short-form social media, where complexity is sacrificed for immediate impact. The result is predictable: more reaction than reflection, more noise than understanding.

The practical effect of this is not to clarify, but to distort. Instead of helping individuals make better decisions — like choosing their relationships more wisely or filtering their social environment — many end up trapped in cycles of complaining, blame-shifting, and unproductive conflict.

The public’s outrage is noticeable. But it’s disproportionate to the rumors they hear. And much of it comes from various people who barely even interact with each other, selling fatalistic ideas in 280 characters or less on https://x.com.

It’s of utmost importance to understand that other people’s subjectivity in inconsequential internet debates doesn’t help readers avoid failures in female behavior — let alone combat that hysterical anxiety of finding an ideal woman of value. I say this because this text is a message aimed at the male audience. No tweet or blog will create a universal solution for this despair you’ve caused yourselves. Especially coming from solipsists who frequently appear commenting on female hypergamy with no purpose whatsoever. They’re all pure self-help juice and engagement bait meant to cultivate collective despair. It’s no coincidence they’re on social media. The impression I get is that Joes in their bedrooms have adopted a macho persona of a Keyboard Rambo in order to criticize their negative experiences with women on their personal profiles out of sheer lack of pragmatism and virtue. Seriously, it looks like an extract of hormones or a cluster of minors.

Self-help or Autonomy, you choose

We live in an environment saturated with opinions, stimuli, and conflicting expectations. Social media, which promised to expand access to information and human connections, often produces the opposite effect: dispersion, anxiety, and loss of individual direction.

It’s quite funny that I commonly see people playing at prophesying civilizational collapse when they can barely mitigate their own risk of falling into hypocritical and obsolete approaches. These analogies — of some hypothetical hamster supposedly inhabiting only the female amygdala — are just another fantasy with a comical virtual contrast. Analogies are figures of speech and therefore can be used both for and against either sex. The intent is always to keep it amusing.

Faced with this scenario, many individuals begin to feel a constant discomfort — not necessarily from a lack of options, but from an excess of irrelevant influences competing for their attention, their time, and ultimately, their own sense of worth.

This text proposes two simple yet structural moves: first, the conscious elimination of noise that does not contribute to your growth; second, the understanding of how the free market — understood as a system of voluntary exchange — can serve as a tool to organize your real priorities, both material and subjective.

It’s not about rejecting modernity or idealizing isolation, but about reclaiming autonomy over what you consume, value, and seek to build.

First step: Blacklist noise

Speaking openly about human behavior, relationships, and dynamics between men and women in public spaces — especially on social media — rarely produces clarity. On the contrary: the more exposed and simplified the debate, the greater the tendency for distortion, emotional reaction, and superficial interpretations.

Open platforms operate under a logic of visibility and quick impact, not precision. In this context, complex ideas are often reduced to short phrases, labels, or provocations (see the Red Cast debates, for example). The result is predictable: discussions that could be useful end up transformed into sterile conflicts, where the goal ceases to be understanding and becomes reacting.

Furthermore, the way many of these topics are presented contributes to the problem. Broad generalizations, aggressive language, or derogatory terms tend to trigger immediate rejection mechanisms — both from the audience and from the platforms themselves, which moderate content based on risk of conflict or offense.

This creates a double effect: on one hand, individuals trying to discuss real experiences end up being quickly labeled or limited; on the other, many start adopting increasingly reactive postures, reinforcing exactly the cycle they claim to criticize. The central point is not to avoid the topic, but to understand the environment. Not every reflection needs to happen in the public square, and not every format favors the truth. Without this care, the debate loses usefulness and turns into just more noise — exactly the kind of noise that needs to be filtered.

And that’s why the first step is considerably stating the obvious: block any irrelevant profile that doesn’t aim to help you grow.

Second step: Sexual free market and what you do with your effort

Knowing that the free market is the only means of exchange that can, through voluntary action, address your real survival needs and practical utility does not mean it should reduce everything to mere material survival.

Your sexual needs (whether you are a man or a woman) and the desire for an ideal partner are not mere pleasure whims with no real utility. They are part of the deep tree of subjective, but also biological, emotional, and existential needs that every individual carries. Wanting a spouse who is truly worthwhile is not just luxury or entertainment: it is a search for fulfillment, affective stability, reproduction, companionship, and meaning — elements that, for many, hold value as high as basic material necessities.

It is up to you (the reader) to decide what is necessary and what is worthy of your effort, time, and money.

In the sexual and affective market, just like in any other aspect of voluntary life, people exchange value for value. Desiring a high-quality partner — attractive, faithful, compatible, of good character — is not “useless” nor “mere pleasure with no real utility.” It is a profound demonstration that human beings do not live by bread alone, nor by raw productive effort alone. They also seek beauty, emotional connection, loyalty, reproduction, and sustainable mutual pleasure.

The free market allows each person to reveal, through their voluntary choices, what they truly value. And valuing an ideal spouse is not a sign of superficiality or weakness. It is a sign that you recognize that some of the greatest utilities in life are subjective, difficult to quantify, yet deeply real — and that they also deserve your effort, your time, and only then, your money.

It is up to each individual to define their own hierarchy of values, respecting that effort is the original creator of everything of real value. And to live with the consequences of that choice.

Submission to entertainment made by mental-children

Seriously… It still feels strange to write this to so many aliases on the internet.

Having control over what you consume should be the most basic and rational attitude of anyone who doesn’t want to read, watch, or expose themselves to something that isn’t good for them. In practice, this post shouldn’t even need to exist as “advice.” But for subjective reasons, I hope it helps someone in a positive and costless way.

Knowing your place is a simple, common, and extremely mature act. The natural instinct to protect children has always been summed up in the phrase: “Know your place.” Every scream is a sign of its tone (it could be a plea for help, a distress call, or an emotional expression). Every request is, in essence, a summons. That is why the search for lasting and stable relationships becomes essential for those who have truly reached adulthood.

It is precisely for this reason that unresolved men and women are the main ones responsible for polluting the digital environment with endless discussions about hypergamy, patriarchy, feminism, and social constructivism — in an already hostile space, dominated mostly by immature people.

In Brazil, early and massive access to cell phones and the internet contributes to this digital immaturity. In 2024, 88.9% of the population aged 10 or older (about 167.5 million people) owned a cell phone for personal use — a jump from 77.4% in 2016.¹ The country is among the world leaders in online time, averaging approximately 9h13min per day connected.²

This early contact with endless entertainment fuels nomophobia (fear of being without a cell phone) and behavioral dependence in 28–46% of the young/adult population, reinforcing the difficulty of emotional self-regulation.

The same pattern appears in illicit drug use. According to LENAD III (Unifesp, 2023/2025), lifetime use rose from 10.3% in 2012 to 18.7% in 2023 — an increase of about 80%. Recent use almost doubled: from 4.5% to 8.1% (more than 13 million Brazilians).³ Marijuana leads the growth, with convergence between sexes and a significant increase among adult women.

Globally, the World Drug Report 2025 (UNODC) records 316 million users of illicit drugs in 2023 (6% of the population aged 15–64), a number that grew faster than the world population.⁴

Both screen addiction and substance use activate the same brain reward circuits (dopamine) and can hyperactivate the amygdala — the structure responsible for processing fear, aggression, and rapid emotional responses. When dysregulated by constant stimuli, it hinders emotional control and mature communication. The result is exactly what I see: toxic debates, endless digital screaming, and an absence of responsibility in how we communicate.

In the end, both passive entertainment and drugs function as escapism for those who have not yet learned to “know their place.” The lack of individual responsibility in communication and consumption only perpetuates the cycle of collective immaturity. Whether you are a man or a woman. It is solely up to you to get out of it. I’m not saying reality doesn’t behave like the members of the so-called “red pill movement” claim. Nor am I positioning myself against irresponsible women. The point is that in a decentralized environment, the only way to gain something from it is: filtering the peers you communicate with.

Some will react with increasing radicalization. Others will seek help from psychologists or interest groups. All because infantile people can’t do the simple thing: filter what they consume. It’s stupid. And it won’t be with online screaming that this will change.

Live long and prosper… blacklisting the noise. 🖖