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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
If Elam were half the asshole he postures as, he would already be in prison for life.
Paul Elam is a bore. Who cares what he says? Let his site go down. RIP.
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.”
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
@lightcastle
I guessed the law in Canada of all places would be reasonable.
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.
There’s a big difference between a reasonable and a sincere but unreasonable belief.
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.
Elam is drooling over his so-called right to kill a woman.
MRAs: batterers, every one of them.
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]
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
Behold the power of the feminist bear.
http://i.imgur.com/XgDozaz.jpg
(I meant beer. But a feminist bear would be awesome, too)
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. 😉
David, your last sentence summed up everything I was going to say. Thank you for that.
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.