Categories
a voice for men advocacy of violence attention seeking empathy deficit entitled babies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA paranoia paul elam threats

MRA Paul Elam: If a feminist pours a drink on me, I’d be justified in killing her

Paul Elam: Might kill you for pouring a drink on him
Paul Elam: Might kill you for pouring a drink on him

Apparently jealous of all the media attention being paid to the Montreal misadventures of PUA shitweasel Roosh Valizadeh, the recipient of an unwanted beer bath at the hands of an angry feminist this past Saturday night, MRA shitweasel Paul Elam has announced to the world that if any lady feminists try that with him, he’ll punch their lights out.

Hell, he adds, he might even kill them. And he thinks he would be completely justified in doing so. 

Elam, the founder and, ahem, CEO of A Voice for Men, describes himself as “nonviolent” and his site as “doggedly antiviolence.” But he wants to warn all drink-holding feminists who might now or in the future be in his vicinity not to “mistake my nonviolence for pacifism.”

“Being an advocate for nonviolent change does not mandate anyone to be a punching bag,” Elam writes.

And while self-defense needs to be proportional to the threat, he argues, it’s safe for MRAs and PUAs and “anyone [else] who dissents honestly from feminism” to assume that if a feminist tosses a drink at you, they are literally trying to kill you.

After Roosh got beer tossed on him this past weekend, you see, one feminist on Twitter noted that alcohol is flammable, and suggested in a jokey hashtag that people encountering him “throw smokes” at him.

This is, of course, a deeply shitty thing to say. Roosh may or may not have deserved the beer-soaking; if some of the things he’s described doing to women in his various books are true, he probably deserves to be in jail.

But, no, he doesn’t deserve to be lit on fire. And you would be hard-pressed to find any feminists (including, I’m pretty sure, that Tweeter) who actually think he deserves a fiery death at the hand of a vigilante mob.

As far as Elam has decided, though, that one shitty tweet suggests that any feminist with a drink in her or his hand is a potential murderer. If a feminist tosses a drink at you, he argues, you can reasonably assume this is an act of attempted murder. 

Given the current climate it becomes rationally questionable whether a feminist throwing a flammable liquid on me intends to ignite it. My personal option at this point would be to assume they would. Thus I would make my response proportional to someone trying to incinerate me. That means they would have to go down and at the very least be completely incapacitated, by any means necessary.

Personally, I think it would be a really bad idea to wait till you see them strike a match. It is now reasonable [to] assume that this is what they are going to do.

Emphasis mine, in this and in the quotes that follow.

Elam has apparently confused “reasonable” with “completely and utterly unreasonable what the fuck are you talking about you piece of shit?”

And it gets worse:

The question for me is whether I will risk being immolated in order to not be arrested. I won’t. And while each person has to make their own decision I don’t suggest anyone roll the dice on these insane ideologues. … 

In the end I am betting this time of crisis will not be long lived. The feminist narrative is increasingly being recognized for the joke that it is. The time will soon come when very few people will even admit to being a feminist, much less take the risk of assaulting people in its name.

Till that happens, though, I think feminists of all kinds should be aware that belonging to a nonviolent movement does not mean you are a pacifist.

Trust me, Paul. No feminist will ever mistake you for a pacifist.

As an MHRA I am willing to die for my beliefs. I only think it prudent to caution that I am equally willing to kill to protect myself.

What the fuck is wrong with you, you fucking piece of shit?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

169 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BritterSweet
6 years ago

I believe he believes that, since he considers opening a refrigerator door reason enough to hit his little grandson. And he (I think it was him) made a fantasy-turned-short-story about a guy being justified in fracturing a woman’s nose for making him feel “emasculated.”

What’s next? Is squirting you with a water gun reason to kill someone because aspirating the water could give you pneumonia?

Paul, you’re surprising no one.

mrex
mrex
6 years ago

Come to think about it, I seem to remember several food fights in my middle school cafeteria. The school cleaned up, kid changed, and the principle punished the perps. No-one was offered counseling! Can you get a clearer example of schools discrimination against boys? Several boys nearly lost their lives as a result of being smeared with sheet pizza, and the school just treated them like the disposable little minions that it views all men as.

This fucking school didn’t even offer counseling when two boys set off a stink bomb during a school assembly! That’s chemical warfare! All the boys giggled like it was a big joke. Oh, the humanity! Poor innocent little boys, unaware of the self-hatred that blinds them!

Paul Elam: less logical than an 11 year old.

lightcastle
lightcastle
6 years ago

History Nerd, the belief of the victim about the threat doesn’t count in Canada for determining assault, but might in the validity of self defense, if I recall.

Let me check.

lightcastle
lightcastle
6 years ago

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

Self-defence in case of aggression

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and

(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

Provocation

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

Preventing assault

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.

SpleenyBaggage
SpleenyBaggage
6 years ago

A comment from Unapologetic MHRA on Paulie’s post: “Simply declaring yourself a feminist makes you a threat to safety as far as I am concerned.”

Good. Stay at home cowering under your bed. That way, genuinely non-violent feminists like me can go about our daily business without having to deal with your unpleasantness.

Cerberus
Cerberus
6 years ago

Micharion-

It depends, in this hypothetical example, is the person attacking him a woman or someone equatable to a woman like a gay man or a feminist? If so, then yes, blowing up all the woman-containing parts of the Earth would be a proportionate response. If not, then clearly that Alpha Male was just engaging in a little light camaraderie and blowing off steam and so retiring to discuss the possibility of directing said anger in a more womanly direction would be the right course of action.

(/Elam)

Shalimar
Shalimar
6 years ago

If Elam were half the asshole he postures as, he would already be in prison for life.

Bazia
Bazia
6 years ago

Paul Elam is a bore. Who cares what he says? Let his site go down. RIP.

Kat
Kat
6 years ago

I’m not a legal expert, but it makes sense to me that the “reasonable person” standard would apply here. Otherwise, you could just say, “He wore a plaid shirt and I’m deathly afraid of plaid shirts, so I killed him.”

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

The only real violence here was the assault that occurred when someone threw a drink on him. Why aren’t we discussing the real violence? Has the perpetrator been arrested? If not, why?

Paul Elam fantasizes about an ebil feminist throwing a drink at him and setting him on fire and you want somebody arrested?

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m74n6ncXQ61rn95k2o1_500.gif

History Nerd
6 years ago

@lightcastle

I guessed the law in Canada of all places would be reasonable.

misseb47
misseb47
6 years ago

WWTH-‘The fuck? Paul Elam reacts to feminists the way cops react to black people. Any excuse to murder one because they “fear for their lives.”’

Yep. He most likely knows that beer is not flammable, he is just using it as an excuse to spout his garbage and the ‘flammabilty’ of beer to justify an extreme, disproportionate response as ‘self defense’. Remember ‘bash a violent bitch’ month? The guy obviously gets off on ‘uppity’* women being put back in their ‘place’

*all women who demand to be treated like the human brings they are.

History Nerd
6 years ago

There’s a big difference between a reasonable and a sincere but unreasonable belief.

Earl
Earl
6 years ago

It’s honestly a little terrifying how similar ol’ Paul looks to Charles Manson in that picture. It’s not just the disgustingly unkempt facial hair, it’s the crazed look in his eyes. Fucking creepy.

Kat
Kat
6 years ago

Elam is drooling over his so-called right to kill a woman.

MRAs: batterers, every one of them.

Paradoxical Intention
6 years ago

But he wants to warn all drink-holding feminists who might now or in the future be in his vicinity not to “mistake my nonviolence for pacifism.”

“Being an advocate for nonviolent change does not mandate anyone to be a punching bag,” Elam writes.

What…how…

He does realize that being non-violent makes you a fucking pacifist by definition, right?

There’s no beer in my house to douse myself with and light myself aflame over the stupidity. [/sarcasm]

Chaos-Engineer
Chaos-Engineer
6 years ago

The only real violence here was the assault that occurred when someone threw a drink on him. Why aren’t we discussing the real violence? Has the perpetrator been arrested? If not, why?

My understanding is that throwing a drink in a creep’s face isn’t considered assault under Common Law. (I’m not technically a lawyer, but I watch a lot of movies.) I guess we could discuss it if you want. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Speaking for myself, I never think of such things. I don’t like to brag, but I’m an Alpha Male, and if someone threw a drink at me, I’d just dodge out of the way like any sensible person. If they followed up by throwing a match, then I’d dodge that too, and then I’d run out of the bar in slow motion just ahead of the fireball. Then I’d look back and say, “Ah. Mediocre.” (That’s my new catchphrase.)

anon
anon
6 years ago

David, you should bring up his position on the Ball Manifesto.

Apparently trying to burn down courthouses is acceptable to the self proclaimed king of the manosphere but using drinks to ward off harassers and potential rapists isn’t.

He’d never allow a rapist to get convicted under his watch but he thinks he has the perfect justification for murdering uppity wimmenfolk.

Meanwhile his douchebro friend wants to legalize rape but whines about being assaulted with beer.

They are shit wearing people costumes.

anon
anon
6 years ago

Does anyone else think that all Elam thinks about is murdering women and committing terrorism?

When his site isn’t posting grievance nonsense it’s fantasizing about committing revenge against perceived slights.

Olive O'Sudden
Olive O'Sudden
6 years ago

Yeah, beer’s not flammable, not even Canadian beer. http://shashikallada.com/2011/12/13/alcoholic-beverages/

I’ve watched the beer-throwing video and my only question is how much he pays those two bodyguards when they can’t even keep him dry on an evening out.

@Alan Robertshaw

You can kill someone pretty easily with a plastic knife if you know what you’re doing; they’re a popular source of prison shivs.

Not in their natural state. In order to be made into an effective shiv, plastics typically need to be melted and sharpened (and combined with other materials) to either produce a sufficiently sharp and strong weapon for either slicing or puncturing.

Who Knows (@ShiraMK)
6 years ago

Behold the power of the feminist bear.
http://i.imgur.com/XgDozaz.jpg

Who Knows (@ShiraMK)
6 years ago

(I meant beer. But a feminist bear would be awesome, too)

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
6 years ago

Roosh needed a shower anyway – even though it was with beer, his stink had to be much better than the stench wafting off him before.

And every time I see the word “bear” here, I can’t help but think of the “Leather daddy of the year” events, with all the bears and their twinkies. 😉

Robert
Robert
6 years ago

David, your last sentence summed up everything I was going to say. Thank you for that.

AltoFronto
AltoFronto
6 years ago

FFS Has anyone *tried* lighting beer? That shit is hard.

Almost any beverage wouldn’t be flammable enough, or even in a large enough quantity, to create an actual fire. Maybe, like a pint of brandy would cause some nasty burns, but who’s going to a) be carrying that around in a bar? b)waste that much good booze on a fucking shit-bucket like Paul Elam?

Any woman in a bar, with a drink in her hand, is a threat to his life?? This raging asshole is actively looking for any reason to kill a woman now. Any reason at all.

Leum
Leum
6 years ago

Doesn’t alcohol also burn at a fairly low temperature? I have a vague memory of my high school chemistry teacher pouring some alcohol on his arm and lighting it and not even turning his skin red…

Kootiepatra
6 years ago

No, Paul, one feminist making one offhanded remark on the internet, no matter how awful, does not give you license to treat all feminists as would-be murderers.

On the other hand, getting creeped on by a specific person who has actually bragged about raping women is a pretty doggone good licence to treat him as a would-be rapist.

And I could buy that a commitment to nonviolence may actually still allow for self defense (e.g., “that person is actively pummeling me, so I get to do what I need to in order to get away”). But it most certainly does not allow for preemptive escalation (“that person dumped a drink on me, so I get to inflict severe physical harm on them”).

Nerag
Nerag
6 years ago

Beer won’t catch fire, it has too much water in it.

rugbyyogi
6 years ago

@whoknows – love the feminist beer – if only I could have that image without the giant asshole looking on from the right.

rugbyyogi
6 years ago

@leum – I’ve known people to douse their fingers in some liquor, light them aflame, and try to do the shot before the fire goes out. I suppose the danger is that if your clothing gets saturated and aflame the fabric might catch…but I’ve seen people put lighter fluid on their jeans and set that aflame without even a singed thread. So maybe not…

Hmmm…. what kind of people do I hang out with?

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
6 years ago

Anything less than 100 proof won’t burn: that’s the definition of the “proof” system, in fact. 100 proof is 57% alcohol by volume IIRC. Most beer is less than 5% alcohol by volume, meaning that it won’t burn. Really, unless you’re drinking distilled spirits, nothing you drink will be flammable.

Ethanol evaporates more easily than water, too, so by splashing it around you lower the alcohol content even further and make it even less flammable. In principle this can lead to the buildup of flammable fumes, but unless you’re reenacting That Scene From Zoolander with vodka instead of petrol, and are doing it somewhere with no ventilation, it’ll be fine.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
6 years ago

As a digression, do we know what “Jennifer” the Beer Girl’s name was? She needs to become a sainted figure in our lore, almost on the level of Katie Herself.

reimalebario
reimalebario
6 years ago

Sambucca is commonly lit on fire prior to drinking and cases of people getting burned pretty badly from sambuca are fairly common.

However, the beverage thrown in Roosh’s face was
1: not sambuca
and
2: (crucially) not on fire

Now, in some countries, throwing a beer in somebody’s face would legally be assault, I don’t know if it is in Canada and I don’t really care. Even where it does qualify as assault, life-threatening violence is still not a proportionate self-defence. And if somebody is unconscious as a result of violence, that is by definition life-threatening.

But yes, you could hurt somebody very badly by throwing a flaming sambuca in their face. You could also harm them very badly by hitting them with a board with a nail in it which is equally irrelevant since neither of those things were what happened here.

marinerachel
marinerachel
6 years ago

I had a fun seasonal gig over last Christmas where it was my job to dip sugarloafs in rum and light them on fire. My hands were burnt as was my face just from working in the hut.

A beer in the face would have been a treat!

I don’t advocate chucking beer in people’s faces needlessly but it’s not physically harmful. It’s assault but it’s not dangerous.

kim-jong-deux
kim-jong-deux
6 years ago

all this mental masturbation about beating up women truly is raising the life quality for men. great job elam nobel peace prize coming for you soon.

Occam's Nightmare
6 years ago

I just want to know what kind of beer Roosh was drinking that was a high enough % to actually be flammable.

Moggie
Moggie
6 years ago

Boost:

Does these chuckleheads really not know how fire works?

Look, it’s hard work keeping up with new technology!

Moggie
Moggie
6 years ago

As an MHRA I am willing to die for my beliefs.

Brave and inspiring words, Paulie! Have you considered the example of Jan Palach, who died for his beliefs? After all, the best way to avoid being set on fire by feminists is to set yourself on fire first.

A less extreme approach would be to pre-emptively throw beer over yourself whenever you’re in the presence of a feminist who you suspect of having fire in mind (which, let’s face it, could be any of them). Once word gets around that Paul Elam is difficult to light, the danger will pass. That will really fuck their shit up!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ History Nerd

For NAL you got that pretty sport on. That reverse burden thing (Section 101 as we say in blighty can get complicated), there’s a ‘legal’ burden and an ‘evidential’ burden. In one you just have to raise the issue, in the other you have to produce evidence. Generally, if you have to produce evidence it only has to be ‘on the balance of probabilities’ i.e. more likely than not, not the ‘beyond reasonable doubt test.

@ Fnoicby

Yes. There’s also the fact that, whilst you can defend yourself against an attack you started, it makes proving self defence harder.

@ Kat and Lightcastle

Ah, Canada is so reasonable. In the UK, and some US states a paranoid belief about plaid shirts would allow you to run honest belief!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ Olice O’Sudden

Hmm, you’re suspiciously well informed on that subject. Would you also be a good person to get advice on brewing radiator hooch? 😉

Over-easy
Over-easy
6 years ago

So wait…using Elam’s argument, since judgybitch attempted to crowd-fund a cross-bow to shoot feminista, can we, totally rationally and logically, assume all anti-feminists are willing to kill feminists and defend ourselves accordingly too?

rv
rv
6 years ago

He didn’t say beer, he said flammable liquid.

Berwick66
Berwick66
6 years ago

@rugbyyogi Have we met? I used to have a party trick of sticking two fingers into a Flaming Sambuca and then lighting a cigarette from my flaming digits. I’m all grown up now and would never do it again but I never suffered any injury.
I also used to light a whole book of matches in one go and put them out in my mouth.

Ellesar
Ellesar
6 years ago

rv – we are taking the piss because it was beer that was thrown, and not even at Elam! He is creating a hypothetical that bears no relation to the situation he has presumably been inspired by to make this threat.

If there were ANY chance that he had a REASONABLE fear of feminists – or anyone – throwing flammable liquids in his face in order to immolate him then he MIGHT have a point. But he doesn’t. As usual.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Funny how Schrodinger’s rapist is misandry despite the fact that women are raped by men every day but it’s okay for Paulie to Schrodinger’s immolating feminist us. Even though we just use Schrodinger’s rapist as an excuse (not that we even need one ) to not engage with strange men if we sense red flag and Paulie is looking for an excuse to use violence, not avoid.

Why, it’s almost like the MRM is not about human rights, but about anger that women mostly don’t want to be treated like sentient blow up dolls!

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Rv,
The liquid that sparked this little violent fantasy was the beer that was thrown on Rhoosh. No feminist threw gasoline on a manospherian. Nobody even joked about doing so as far as I know. It’s pretty reasonable to assume the “flammable liquid ” Elam was fretting about is beer.

Spindrift
Spindrift
6 years ago

As an MHRA I am willing to die for my beliefs.

He’s prepared to die for his beliefs but not prepared to do any actual activism for men’s rights? Activist…
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/34759_large_You_Keep_Using_That_Word_Meme_FP_Wide.png

Fred_the_Dog
6 years ago

Huh. When I make Bananas Foster, I have to flame the rum I pour on top…it’s hard to get it to light, and I can hold my hand right over the teeny blue flames and not get burned. The flames don’t last long, either. You couldn’t make Bananas Foster with beer; no way could you get it to light.

anon
anon
6 years ago

@Ellesar

You don’t get it.

Paul NEEDS to fee victimized.

He NEEDS to pretend that he’s powerless.

Without the imaginary oppression then the manosphere would disappear.

Penny Psmith
Penny Psmith
6 years ago

Well, I guess one solution to make sure he doesn’t fear being immolated would be to throw a non-alcoholic drink at him. Like a clearly-marked previously-unopened can of soda. Sticky and annoying, but not life-threatening.

Of course, the whole thing feels like empty bluster. ‘Oh yeah, I would totally beat up those feminists! They wouldn’t dare throw a drink at me, and they’re all jokes anyway, but if they would, I would so beat them up! Hoo! Look at me!’

Ugh.