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?
