Twilight Sparkle Has Had It With Your Bullshit

It was a strange week in the moderation queue, kids. Not only did we have some confused racist moron who felt the need to reply immediately to a story from last year, but we suddenly got complaints, just this week, about some comments that were actually written months ago. Odd!

We'll start with something a little more recent, from "Lawrence F," who made a whole special Disqus account to leave a single comment on our September 18 article about the revelation that Paul Manafort was the subject of FBI wiretaps. Somehow, we hadn't managed to find room in a Dear Shitferbrains for this one at the time, but it's worth a late look, if only because it crams so much strange into only 50 words. Besides, it addresses an issue of perennial concern here: Wonkette's dirty language, shame on us. "Lawrence" was very disappointed in us, all in all:

Wonkette, your filthy mouth is one of the most attractive things about your reportage, because it is aimed at total scumbags. However, I urge yourself to recognize when the obscenities become the center of attention rather than the reportage. E.g., "laving Putin's penis." Nice in the abstract, but rather juvenile en situ.

Not entirely certain, but it looks like "Lawrence" is of two minds here: the dirty talk is all we have going for us, because our readers are scumbags, but golly, why must we include so much dirty talk in our dirty talk? Also, "laving Putin's penis" is an obscenity that detracts from what was, at the time, hot breaking news, and so while it seemed like a good idea in the abstract, it was very juvenile "in situ," which, if you want to nitpick, is not actually the opposite of "abstract." In conclusion, ourself has certainly been put on notice, hasn't we?

Update: Alert Wonkette Operative Serai 1 notes, in the comments we do not allow:

I think you may have misinterpreted that first comment, at least the bit about the language. I think he meant the obscenities are fine because of the subject you're aiming them at (the subject being the "scumbags", not the readers). Otherwise, the second part of the comment wouldn't make much sense. Honestly, I think he was trying to help.

That actually makes sense, and so we have revised our view of "Lawrence" considerably. He's not a confused hater of Wonkette, he's a would-be friend of Wonkette. But still a confused censorious Pecksniff, because somehow he doesn't recognize this blog is fueled by dick jokes.

Then there's "Jungle Jim Miller," who showed up last week in the comments to our September 8, 2016 piece on Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass, who wrote a rambling piece about crime in his fair city. Kass mused about "feral" young black men who turned out that way because Democratic social programs destroyed The Black Family (there is just the one). Not sure why "Jim" felt the need to leave multiple replies to year-old comments; maybe he thought the piece was from September of this year, or maybe since it was about race, we needed to be told just how terrible black people are, which is, for folks like "Jim," truly a timeless topic. Here's a sampling:

  • The gov't is paying them to breed, dumbazz. The more children they have, the bigger the check.
  • They still won't work.
  • The mothers are denied cash if (able) father is living at home.

"Jungle Jim Miller" even replied to one of my year-old comments! Last year, one "wm c barker," (original Disqus username "whimsybehere") had left this whimsical comment on the article: "Jungle DNA can not be changed." Charming, huh? But I was rather pleased with my message telling that twit he was banhammered: "Look, Mr. Kass, you don't have to comment on everything written about you." I thought that was pretty darn whimsical.

But "Jim" didn't even get the joke! He simply replied to me, "They are genetically predisposed to crime." He seems nice. I wasn't about to let that fly, so I replied,

That seems like an awfully unfair generalization about Chicago Tribune columnists. Also, you are aware that you're spewing your bullshit all over a post that's from September 2016, yes? Bye, troll!

That didn't go over so well! Not long after lowering the banhammer, I received this delightful email:

Subject: Nigger Lover

James D Miller [email redacted]

to me

Fuck You, Nigger Lover. Hope your family is ass-raped by twelve of them

I guess he must really hate that I accused him of slurring Chicago Tribune columnists. Here's hoping this Jim Miller is not one of the Jim Millers any of you readers know.

Then there was this weird thing that happened when I refreshed my moderation queue and it spat out for review eight comments, all by different people on different articles, that had been written 8 to 11 months ago. Not new comments on old articles, but maybe newly-flagged old comments, or perhaps Disqus was just clearing its throat? The system shows when a comment was written, but not when it was flagged for review. VERY STRANGE.

One was part of a string of oddball rightwing comments on a piece we did in February about fake news spewer James O'Keefe discovering unspeakable bias when a CNN editor said the role of journalism is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," a line that's we noted is over a century old. Several wingnuts dropped by to complain about something, though it wasn't exactly the article:


how easily the liberal propaganda machine controls your simple minds. all of you are complete trash. useless, horribly confused, naïve, lowlife trash. where were all of you when Clintons husband was putting cigars into monica Lewinski?

"Aj" [in reply to someone who called "John" a troll]:

It's only trolling if it's not true. You goofy liberals are indeed useless, horribly confused, naive trash.

If you don't think so then you need to stop protesting when people you don't agree with are due to speak & remove those of your kind that give the rest of us the opinion that you are a useless lot.

Well then! Those were certainly on-topic critiques of absolutely nothing in the piece. I had popped in (again, this was all back in February) to reply to "Aj,"

So basically the game here is to just show up, ignore the actual article, and yell rightwing talking points? WHAT ABOUT BENGHAZI? WHY DID YOU IGNORE BENGHAZI?

In reply to that, I got the comment that was, for some reason, brought to my attention this week. It was from "youse" (credit where it's due -- that's a good yousername), who explained why none of them were actually talking about the article: Because liberals are just full of hatred, and that made the article itself unreadable:

I guess it's just hard to get through your juvenile rant. You are certainly not a journalist. Very boring, as all rantsa re because it is just an outlet to your pent up anger because you are a mediocre human looking for attention. Please don't give up your assembly line job.

Heavens! Trashing assembly line workers? What an elitist comment! Sad. Now, if we could only figure out why it got flagged in October.

We'll close with a real doozy of a time warp: Another comment that was tossed into moderation last week, but was written ten months ago, on an article from April 2013, when Donald Trump was not running for president. We'd like to thank the Disqus glitch or whatever for calling our attention to this one, since it's among our all-time Trump Weirdness stories, about the decidedly odd skin-care regimen Melania imposed on their son Barron, then just seven years old: She put her very own line of caviar-based skin conditioner on the poor kiddo:

“It smells very, very fresh,” Melania, who launched the skincare line exclusively in Lord & Taylor this week, told ABC News. “I put it on him from head to toe. He likes it!”

It turns out that this article from four years ago really upset one "anncauley," because we are just monsters:

You sick twisted people! Children are off limits, go bully someone else. This reeks of jealousy and envy, coming from what I assume is an adult it's disgusting. Grow Up and find something interesting to write about. Leave the children alone.

Gosh, we feel terrible, or we would if the article had been making fun of little Barron Trump, which of course it was not: It was making fun of Donald and Melania Trump and their weird penchant for smearing $150 fish-egg-based moisturizer on their innocent child, who as a seven-year-old had very little choice in the matter. Why "anncauley" thought we would be jealous of such horrible people is quite beyond us. Obviously, we hate them for their freedom to put the overpriced lotion on his skin.

Still, we must thank The Accident for belatedly flagging that comment, because otherwise we would have missed this other comment on the same piece, from "sharon," a year ago:

Beautiful brilliant kids and wife..............we should be so lucky...........they can afford the nicer things, but they are modest...........

All the kids worked hard to get where they are today, educated hard working

and Huffington post is so liberal only crap is written,,,,,,,,,they are the lowest fourth rate paper.........just a gossip rag sheet. Go trump you will be the best president

That is certainly a comment.........we wish we could understand why some rightwing commenters write that way,,,,,,,,,It's not like any published writers, even at Breitbart ----------- we mean the staff, not the commenters of course ----------- abuse punctuation so mercilessly. Then again, "sharon's" prose style seems to be an evolving thing; her comment history lately has branched out, now combining the exaggerated ellipses with ALL CAPS:

  • no's the liberals who are getting desperate by their violent actions



Funny, that last one strikes us as.......perhaps......mistaken. In conclusion, we are tired of time travel and would like Disqus to please stop turning comment moderation into a Philip K. Dick roleplay, thank you, the end.

Yr Wonkette is supported by reader donations. Please click right here to help us keep feeding the electric sheep.

Doktor Zoom

Doktor Zoom's real name is Marty Kelley, and he lives in the wilds of Boise, Idaho. He is not a medical doctor, but does have a real PhD in Rhetoric. You should definitely donate some money to this little mommyblog where he has finally found acceptance and cat pictures. He is on maternity leave until 2033. Here is his Twitter, also. His quest to avoid prolixity is not going so great.

Donate with CC
Robbin Young. Fair use so we can all see the boob picture she sent to her 12 true loves.

Robbin Young starred in the Roger Moore masterpiece For Your Eyes Only as the seventh female lead, "Girl in Flower Shop." She also starred in a bunch of Playboys, and the DM's of a humble Romanian hacker who stole her heart. But he was not a humble Romanian hacker, he was 12 Russian military intelligence officers in a trench coat. And now Young has shared those DMs and pictures of her buzzies with the Sun, because that's the one that's fookin' classy.

See how she loved! See how Guccifer ghosted her ass! See how she loves him (them) still! See how she was all up in Seth Rich and shit! (We think Young's judgment might not be awesome.) Also she wrote this "erotic poem," and we're going to need you to read it.

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC

And now it is time for your weekly reminder that in the Trump era, FUCKING APESHIT OUTRAGE WORKS.

On Monday, Donald Trump, the transactional president who for some godforsaken reason sees Vladimir Putin has his one true father, discussed making an Art Of The Deal with Russia that involved letting Robert Mueller interrogate the Russian spies who hacked America in 2016 (with Russian supervision, of course, in Russia) in exchange for sending Putin whichever American citizens hurt Putin's poor fragile butthurt pansy-ass feelings the past several years. One of Putin's targets is Michael McFaul, the former ambassador to Russia, whom Putin just hates. Hillary Clinton isn't on the official list yet, but give it a few weeks.

On Wednesday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders looked at reporters and told them Trump's people were considering the idea, but hadn't decided yet, because it's so hard for the Trump administration to decide how many treasons to do per week.

But hooray! The White House has decided that, after literally every American with a patriotic bone in his or her body said, "THE FUCK YOU SAY," they will not send Americans to Putin's gulag after all. The Washington Post reports:

The White House announced Trump's opposition Thursday as the Senate prepared to vote on a resolution telling the president not to honor Putin's request, which would have exposed former U.S. ambassador Michael McFaul, among others, to Russian questioning.

"It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump disagrees with it," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.

Oh my fucking Lord, Shuckabee, did you really type that Putin's offer was "sincere," or did Donald grab the statement after you finished with it and add those words in illiterate Sharpie in the margins, along with "DOES NOT MEAN PUTIN IS NOT MY BEST FRIEND" and "NO COLLUSION"?

By the way, that resolution passed the Senate with flying colors:

WOMP WOMP, Trump! Sorry American freedom and democracy stepped all over your dick again! Guarantee it's gonna happen again! Go fuck yourself! Enjoy the 48 Big Macs you have for dinner tonight! Don't talk directly into the soccer ball Putin gave you, 'less you want it to talk back to you in Russian!

OK post over.

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT NOW, DO IT RIGHT NOW!

Help Wonkette LIVE FOREVER! Seriously, if you can, please help, by making a donation of MONEY.

[Washington Post]

Donate with CC




©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc