Deleted Comments: Alas, We Have Offended A Sensitive Soul (Or Men's Rights Activist, Same Difference)

Your Wonkette isn't perfect, lord only knows, and when we err, we seek to make amends. Which brings us to this very important message from our comments queue, from "jrayhawk" (please, no Ray Jay Johnson jokes), who felt that we treated the subject of a recent story quite shabbily. Friday, we ran a story about several important developments in gender relations, including the sad tale of Scott Aaronson, a professor at MIT who has pretty much had it with how feminists have criminalized every last aspect of male sexuality. Jrayhawk felt that we failed to give Aaronson an even break because we sided with the mean women instead of with their victim:

Scott Aaronson was so afraid of being condemned for his own gendered entitlement that he asked a doctor to chemically castrate him. The response here appears to be to condemn him for his own gendered entitlement and mock his fear. I have been reading Wonkette since the SKS days, and this is the scummiest thing I have ever seen written here. I do not think I will be reading Wonkette anymore.

After all, if someone is so frightened of feminist bogieladies that they request an extreme medical intervention, that is clearly an irrefutable indictment of feminism, and not in any way an indication that Aaronson's fears were in any way exaggerated. Also, we are constantly amazed to learn that some people have read Wonkette for years but just now figured out that we are not down with Men's Rights. But farewell, jrayhawk. You will be missed.

Our story about Sarah Palin letting her kid stand on a dog, and the ensuing backlash from outraged dog-lovers, drew this, from "Bradsteraz":

Anyone who has seen animals around Downs kids knows there is a very special protective bond from dog to child. Most of theses commenters would have aborted this child in a New York minute. It's much easier to make snarky commenters from that rarefied air of certaintude.

We must protest! It should be pretty clear from our article that Trig and the doggie are pretty much the only people in the Palin family that we have any regard for. Although frankly, we're also holding out hope that Piper will have a glorious teen rebellion, become a punk rocker, and in her mid 20s will write a scathing tell-all memoir that gets her elected as Alaska's first Socialist member of Congress. But we do not say that with any degree of certaintude.

Also, speaking of the Great Palin Dogstand, there's been a new development: The Alaska SPCA's Facebook page says they're looking into it:

Regarding the posts to our wall and messages about Sarah Palin's dog: The Alaska SPCA agrees that this type of behavior with an animal is unacceptable. Please know that the appropriate enforcement authorities have been notified. The location of the household falls under the jurisdiction of the Mat Su Animal Care and Regulation. You can register complaints there as well.

Needless to say, the comments there are pretty much what you'd expect. Funny, we think that maybe -- and this is from our radfem America-hating babby-abortin' perspective, so keep that in mind -- it might have been better if Mama Griz had simply said "Trig, honey, we don't stand on the dog. Here, let me help you up," instead of running for her camera. But we are pretty communistical that way.

Our story about Neil de Grasse Tyson's Christmas Day tweets, in which the astrophysicist celebrated the birth of a man who transformed the world by the age of thirty (Isaac Newton), was not at all appreciated by "PewForums," who we are pretty sure is not actually associated with the Pew Foundation (our detective work includes doubting that the nonprofit would use an email address beginning with "keithmoon500"). We'll confess that we're having trouble figuring out exactly where PewForums stands here:

Laugh while you can, people. Atheists constitute about 1% of the American population, and about a third of you are right wing nut jobs who would love to see your sneering butts kicked by the fundie legions. For the moment, the left Christians are more than happy to keep you safe and to move progressive legislation like civil rights and gay marriage. As you keep throwing rocks at our heads, progressively more of us are getting tired of your antics and less likely to the rescue when some dark force applies the smackdown; protecting smug little atheist bomb throwers is after all not really our charter. Savor your domination of the Wonkette commentariat, never mistake this place for the real world, and enjoy those assfucking jokes.

This one leaves us a bit perplexed -- is PewForums an actual lefty Christian who has just had it with our mockery of fundamentalists whose theology he/she (presumably) disagrees with, but feels obliged to side with in the face of the Atheist Threat? Or is this a troll who's trying on the persona of a lefty Christian? Based on what longtime commenters say here at Yr Wonkette, our impression is that most of the lefty Christians here are really big on the whole Social Gospel "be nice to people and take care of each other" parts of the faith, which, frankly, those of us with few or no theological attachments also think are pretty good, too, even if we may disagree about the divinity of the guy who said them. But apparently the Smackdown is coming, and mean atheists with their cruel Newton-idolatry are going to see themselves abandoned to the American Patriarchy Association's vengeance squads, while our erstwhile left-Christian allies stand aside and laugh as we are dragged off to Jesus Camp.

Gosh, we had no idea that Wonkette was so riven by faith-based conflict. Then again, we could just be naïve -- we'd also assumed that everybody here was in agreement on buttsex.