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?
Oh, I’m all about the pure sugar versions, generally. One of the few ‘food trends’ I’ve really jumped on board with.
The reason Pepsi is sweeter is that it was invented after refrigeration became accessible to everyone, so it has more sugar in it.
Coke was invented pre-refrigerators, so it was meant to taste good when warm, so less sugar.
@ SunnyS
Ooh, be careful saying that, you’ll get sued. Or possible not, the case was a bit confusing. I like that one of the judges said the case proved defamation law was “beyond redemption”. 🙂
http://www.5rb.com/case/ajinomoto-sweeteners-europe-sas-v-asda-stores-ltd-no-2-ca/
@Alan
He he, yeah I know it’s dodgy science that made that link. Hence why I used the word loosely as a moderator.
On another note, CollegeHumor have made perhaps one of their best videos yet:
https://youtu.be/f7WQMZWguBQ
It’s so weird – whenever we call out one, the rest respond too!! Even if it has nothing to do with them. Talk about hive-mind!!
I’ve been meaning to tell you David, thank you for the work that you do. Thanks to your blog I can laugh at these ridiculous twats without having to click on their own websites/videos and increasing their popularity.
You are awesome.
@Prios
You win the thread 🙂
So according to Paulie, setting a courthouse on fire = totes ok; absolutely no chance of being set on fire after being doused with a non-flammable liquid = start punching.
If I showed Paulie that I had a lego in my hand, and then I hid my hand behind my back, would he understand where the lego went? I’m not sure he would.
Bahahahahhaha, @Prios, I splurfed my water!!!
@ Tracy
He’d cite the fact that Lego is the weapon of choice around here and use that as justification for shooting you.
For the record: Regular Pepsi > Diet Coke > Regular Coke > > > > > > > > Diet Pepsi a.k.a. “Devil’s bile.”
And yet, he’s also the guy who says “The pen is in your hand”.
Well, Paulie? Which IS it?
@Tracy
Well, I don’t know. Maybe Paulie doesn’t have double standards. I mean, he’s never weighed in on whether the courthouse would be justified in punching the arsonist, has he?
Once again so-called “feminists” miss the point, entirely ignoring the most important issue at hand, which is that Paul Elam thinks beer is flammable.
@pecunium:
The proof system originates in the Royal Navy. Suspicious of the quality of the booze they were issues, sailors would soak ordinarily-flammable things in rum and set fire to them to see if the rum was suitably strong. If it was too weak, the substance wouldn’t catch fire. This substance was usually cord or canvas, although Wikipedia claims that gunpowder (!) was also used.
As the test substance was suffused in rum before a light was set to it, the fumes wouldn’t play a part in this test – it’s to do with the ability of the water content to retard the fire as opposed to the alcohol content’s flammability.
I’m aware that countries other than Britain have proof systems which vary from the standard; I have no idea how those systems are defined.
Pretty sure beer doesn’t qualify as a flammable liquid. Just sayin.
Reminds me of all the diehard Trumpers who are now reportedly sending death threats to Megyn Kelly.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/megyn-kelly-reportedly-received-death-threats-from-donald-trump-supporters/ar-BBlEKtS?ocid=mailsignout
Speaking of Trumpers, have you seen the new “Shaun the Sheep” movie? The villain’s name is “Trumper”. It’s almost certainly just a coincidence, but because the film came out right when the media was all abuzz over Donald Trump, I thought it was interesting.
As a always-reader and very-scarce-commenter, I just want to say that I am happy to see you back here, Pecunium. I missed your comments. I’m always amazed at how much you know about…well, so much. 🙂
What a dope, beer doesn’t have nearly enough alcohol in it to catch fire. He’s just rationalizing his desire to abuse women.
EJ: I am well aware of the idea of “proofing” spirits (which predates the RN as a going concern)*: It’s problematic, at best
Modern proofing is based on the specific gravity of alcohol, as a ratio, with the UK using the formula 100 proof = 12/13th the SG of water**
(Oxford Dictonary of Weights and Measures, Ofxord University Press, 2002: footnote omitted)
And taxation, more than “fair measure” was the big issue in setting legal proof(though one of the interesting things was the idea that more dilution = less effect, so that the Royal Navy would punish sailors by adding extra water to their grog).
As to the flammability of various concentrations: flash point of 40 percent (US 80 proof UK 70 Proof, Guy Lussac [the European Standard] 40 proof) has a flash point of 79F/26C.
The odds of it igniting if tossed on someone aren’t great, but it could be done. If one had intent, heating it (by say cradling it in the hands for several minutes) would increase the odds greatly.
It isn’t until the concentration gets to 70 percent, or so, that room temperature is, generally, adequate for easy ignition (see above my comments re the use of warmed spirits in flambe cookery).
*the version of the story which says sailors were doing this test are, at best, hard to credit as factual. 1: Powder was very closely kept. 2: Fire was the single greatest hazard to ships. 3 Rum was more closely kept than powder (because of sailors fondness for stealing it). 4: any fire not contained on the galley decking was punished harshly; flogging at the very least. At the most, court martial leading to death, esp. if it was seen as mutinous, which is how most captains would see the implicit accusation they were cheating the men of their due.
** A hydrometer introduced in 1725, Clarke’s hydrometer, became the standard way tax collectors determined proof. By 1762 this hydrometer was even mentioned in the law defining the standard gallon of spirits, six parts spirits and one part water by weight, and weighing 7 pounds, 13 ounces at 50° Fahrenheit.
A hydrometer, however, can only determine the composition of a water-alcohol mixture if it contains only water and alcohol–and there are other complicating factors, especially temperature. By adding sweeteners, such as molasses, importers could evade the tax on higher proof spirits. After decades of controversy, on 6 January 1817 a different hydrometer, Sike’s, was made the legal method for determining proof.
By Sike’s hydrometer, proven spirits were at least 57.1% alcohol by volume (49.28% by weight). The British proof system is built on this number. “Proof” spirits, or 100-proof spirits, are 57.1% alcohol by volume. Proofs above and below 100-proof are sometimes referred to as so many degrees under proof or over proof. American 100-proof whiskey, for example, might be called either “87.5-proof” or “12.5 under proof.” For a quick conversion of British proof to American, multiply the British proof by 8, then divide by 7.
“Between the Trader and the Public,” British alcohol standards and the proof of good governance. Technology and Culture, volume 42, no. 1 (January 2001)