Last week this blog was pretty much inundated with social work types, all screaming abuse at your truly for refusing to take seriously their pathetic demands that I stop treating them as parasitic, lower middle class scum. Sorry boys and girls, but that is never going to happen.
Needless to say, being complete and utter fucktards who have nothing better to do with their working lives than spend long hours reading this blog, many of them left comments on very old postings. I am not sure why they did that, but whenever anyone is dealing with a social worker it is always best to keep in mind just how utterly useless they are at everything they do, so leaving one idiotic rant on one post and then making a follow up comment on another is pretty much par for the course from a social worker.
That said, this comment which I reproduce in full below is somewhat different. It's as stupid as anything else that any of these parasites have ever written, but I have my doubts about is veracity. I will explain why in a moment, but for now the comment appeared on a very popular post from 2013 which explained that Femen is not actually a genuine feminist movement, instead it is a stooge organisation that was set up by a man who wanted his very own harem.
Hello Mr Bell. Thank you for posting my comment and thank you for your reply. Ignoring the predictably Americanised nature of your chosen terms of abuse, let me explain to you why I object to some of your postings. You seem to think it is acceptable to comment on women's physical appearance in terms of their attractiveness to you, which is classic male arrogance and sexism. Reducing a feminist political protest to an opportunity to leer lecherously at a photograph of topless women is itself crass. Having the sheer temerity to add comments about the slight variation (from an idealised, male-dictated 'norm') in the body shape of one of the protesters is rude, adolescent and unnecessary. It attempts to reassert the thousands of years of male control of women's bodies which feminism has been challenging for decades. The general tone of your postings on women is a curious combination of 'Carry On' style adolescent leering and misogynistic hatred, neither of which are appropriate in this day and age. Finally, a word about the terms you choose as insults which are, in my view, deeply revealing of the precise natuire (sic) of your mysogny (sic). The term 'pussy-whipped' conflates together the vagina and violence. Does this perhaps indicate a deep-seated fear of women in general and their vaginas in particular on your part? The suiggestion (sic) that I am 'dickless' is equal;ly (sic) interesting as dicklessnes (sic) in itself is usually an indication of femaleness. The fact that you actually believe a state of dicklessness is inferior to a state of dickedness indicates that it is noeither (sic) certain women nor certain attiutudes (sic) that offfend (sic) you but women themselves. You are clearly afraid of women and this fear translates into hatred. This is classic mysogny (sic). It may not be your fault that you are a mysogynist (sic) (as a social worker I understand that people are largely the products of their environment) but it is unbecoming to flaunt this ugly trait in public.
Yeah, I know, on the surface it is inane isn't it? Not only that, but it looks as if the dickhead who wrote it didn't even read my post properly. Remember that it was about the fact that Femen is a stooge outfit, so only an idiot could then go on to claim that the group's antics are part of serious politics. Now you might say that feminism as a whole is nothing more than a bourgeois pose that is adopted by ugly women who hate men more than they hate other women, but that is not the point, is it?
Then we have the spelling mistakes,especially the fact that the writer cannot even spell "misogyny" correctly. Again, we take that as being normal from a social worker because we just assume that as a breed they are semi-educated buffoons with a desire for status who use big words to make themselves feel important.
Yet, there is something wrong with this comment which leads me to believe that it is not genuine social work wank, but instead a rather engaging bit of trolling. In other words, this writer is not as stupid as he tries to pretend, being someone who sat down, presumably with a cigarette in his mouth and cup of tea steaming at his elbow, to give us some stereotypical social work spurt to amuse himself.
Why do I think that? Mainly because it is too perfect an example of how these clowns write. It is as if someone went over to a social work site and grabbed a few ideas from the genuine dickheads. Then he sat down and covered everything in one paragraph. It's a Daily Mail idea of social work, in other words, and very funny for all that.
Now, we had better just hope that this theory is correct. If it isn't, and if this is a genuine social worker, then the need to organise ourselves to pressure the political parties to stop providing employment for these sub-normals is rather more pressing that I ever imagined.