I took a law course covering libel/slander in college but I'm certainly not a lawyer (my course was "hey, you're thinking about journalism. Here's how you're most likely to be sued"). It's also been over a decade since I took the course. So, I'm going based on memory.

Defamation cases use the term "reasonable person" a lot for defining if something is defamatory. You're dealing with lies or reckless disregard and whether that injures the person's character.

Would a reasonable person consider what the article claims Ken Bone said defamation? Yes, they would. Would a reasonable person read Ken Bone's post and interpret it to mean Ken Bone thought a rape victim was disgusting? No, they would not. Would a reasonable person find being called a rape apologist or something similar injurious to their character? Yes, probably.

But the ultimate question is: Did this injure Ken Bone's character in the public's eye? That is difficult. Generally, I haven't heard virtually no one talk about Ken Bone outside of reddit and reddit is on his side. So, it's extremely likely that Ken Bone's character wasn't technically defamed. A handful of people who read the deleted article who probably didn't care about Ken Bone and still don't may not be enough for defamation.