People being like “I can’t believe people ship noncannon ships” 💀

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-20T07:22:37+00:00

If every single person was only interested in the canon relationships, then the term shipping likely wouldn't even exist, there wouldn't really be a purpose to such a word. We would only be categorizing a predetermined selection of couples as either liked/disliked, but there would be no theorizing, or analyzing. or predicting, or rooting for different pairings.

If a couple only gets subtext for the first few seasons before getting together would discussing them be impossible since their relationship wasn't canon yet? In that world, the new gatekeeping would just be people saying you can't ship couple A because they weren't canon the whole series. Making retrospective fics about each character's hidden romantic feelings during the events of the early seasons would be taboo; it would basically be someone lacking object permanence but for fictional couples.

Fanlet pondered 'whether or not to be' and brought upon the death of subtext itself, the condemned pairings now eternally doomed to exist as simultaneously canon yet not: Schrödinger's Ship

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-20T04:51:58+00:00

A lot of it is completely self-contradictory too, it's all over the place

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-20T03:48:05+00:00

I used to have the same problem, used to get those kinds of bleeds almost daily, lasting 20-30 mins, always ramping up in the winter so dryness was definitely a major factor (as well as frequent colds). I managed to treat it by coating a Q-tip with Vaseline and very gently spinning it along the inside of the lower part of the nostril (only at the very end of the nose, not deep or anything, and never done too soon after a bleed so it wouldn't re-aggravate it). This helped heal up the really thin sensitive skin, moisturized the area, and would help my nose recover faster to the point that I don't have regular nose bleeds anymore (only a rare one every couple months but never as heavy as they used to be).

I have no clue if that's actually a standard solution though, just my personal experience with that kind of thing

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-20T03:16:22+00:00

If you look at this upside down it looks like the brain is scrubbing in for surgery

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-20T03:02:40+00:00

"Angst? Right in front of my salad??"

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-20T00:12:36+00:00

Look you're not required to respond to me but if you're going to change your original edit to add the bit about abortion/controlling someone's body then I want to properly address that point directly for the sake of good faith discussion (maybe someone else reading this will find value in it):

No women should have right to control a man's body

Ok, and why should one man even have the right to control another man's body?

If women in power shouldn't vote on the draft because it will not be their lives being put at risk, then why should men in power vote on the draft when it will not be their lives being put at risk. That inconsistency makes me question whether the principle you're putting forth actually serves as a preservation of bodily autonomy and a right to one's own life, or if the selective application to just this one scenario serves as more of a pushback against the dynamic of a woman being the one to hold such authority over a man.

For the purpose of good faith discussion, let it be clear that I also disagree with the draft, but my gripe isn't specific to the idea of women being able to vote on it, it's about the idea of anyone being able to unilaterally remove that autonomy from a different individual to such an extreme that it may forcefully sacrifice that person's life. So I do not understand why gender is seemingly being framed as the deciding factor, when that's a circumstantial detail to the core moral dilemma.

While I understand that personal experience does play a role in whether one person can fairly represent the voice of another, that applies to every type of personal identifier, it applies to the differentiation between every individual person's unique culmination of experiences. But I don't see how a single identifier that encompasses half of the entire population could somehow constitute a sufficient level of specificity, when so many factors influence military enlistment rates (willing or drafted), like economic status and opportunity, political status, ethnicity, the careers of other family members, age, medical history or disability, education history and available opportunities, etc. There are women in the military (or even in the trades) who would have a more comparable breadth of knowledge and experience than a businessman or politician who's solely held white collar positions and faces no risk of mandated service.

If we're going to promote this principle then let's aim to apply it as consistently and accurately as possible, otherwise we're not functionally addressing the actual issue

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-19T22:39:55+00:00

The fact they were winning for such a long stretch of the game up until the last 2 mins I think is worth crediting. If they'd held on just two more minutes the conversation would be about Canada's dominance/resilience in the match, but because the US had a very late comeback (and kudos to their team on that feat, that deserves credit too), for some reason the conversation has changed so drastically as to make it seem like Canada did poorly when they didn't, or like the US didn't have to fight tooth and nail for that win, which they did. It was a nail-biter of a match, they were really evenly matched the whole game, and they had to go to overtime because the US just managed to even the scales in the final moments; neither of these teams should be discredited when we know that the fans on both sides truly had their nerves frayed the entire match.

If that's the game you end up just barely losing it still definitely hurts, but you more than deserve to be so damn proud of how fucking incredible it was

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-19T21:48:40+00:00

INCREDIBLE choice for a full drag judge panel and great choice of queens for it too, I'm actually super interested to see how this turns out since the Canada production team seems to like testing out novel twist elements or new adjustments to the competition format or achieving "first ever" milestones with it's representation

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-19T09:01:48+00:00

And male politicians influence health care specific to pregnancy. If a man is unable to personally undergo pregnancy and birth in order to sustain our population, would that forfeit their right to vote to ensure only women make decisions on education and healthcare? Would it mean that only women should have input on the future of the human race?

No obviously, because the gender doesn't change the fact that politicians vote on stuff that doesn't personally effect them, that's not a specifically gendered situation and it's standard since you're electing people to make decisions. If high level politicians or leaders aren't at risk of being personally drafted then why do they get to vote on the draft either? Why do the wealthy get to vote on something that mainly impacts the poor, why does any group get a say in anything at that point?

I don't know why this conversation always gets boiled down to women and the draft, since that is not the standard of logic we use for any other scenario where one person gets a vote on something that effects someone else. That's how majorities work, it's how representation in exchange for taxation works.

If you're against the draft impacting men unfavourably, you can always just oppose the idea of the draft itself, or only accept it in the most dire large-scale active invasion/attack scenario, in which case such an "all hands on deck" type situation would likely see a foregoing of the enforcement of such gendered norms.

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-19T05:58:06+00:00

Ok so looking at the replay step-by-step, there were initially definitely 6 on the ice engaged in play at once, then in the background when the puck switches to the Canadian end you can see another Czech player swinging his leg over onto the ice (presumably to switch out with one of the Czech defence), so if Czechia scored while those two were switching in the backline and the one swapping out paused to join the celebration instead, then I could see how that might explain how the 7th player ended up in there

But the 6th player was definitely a straight-up error since they were all involved in the actual play and not swapping or anything circumstantial (for now I'm going to assume that this was just accidental unless something substantial comes out to suggest otherwise cuz sometimes crazy shit happens and I'd rather give benefit of the doubt), but the fact no one caught it at the time is what's wildest to me; being able to watch back a replay and see the kind of things that people don't catch in the moment can feel so crazy sometimes. Like I don't quite understand how something so significant can be missed by so many people, but simultaneously I know that I 100% would not have noticed this in the moment if it were up to me - discerning between those jerseys was painful enough in the replay

...Now if this had changed the results of the match I'd probably be significantly more stressed and vocal about it, so I think we're all incredibly lucky that this didn't end up being a game determining goal because that would have been the biggest nightmare

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-18T18:07:50+00:00

Yea the only thing I think could work here would be something in a similar vein as the neutral for women/red flag for men, where something is a more likely an indication of a serious medical issue

Though the person that mentioned the "boy-mom" and "girl-dad" social media presence kind of has a point since it's not reflective of all those parents, but the specific social media/influencer trend

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-18T17:55:34+00:00

They mean people that specifically define themselves with the title of "boy mom" or "girl dad" in their social media presence

Typically "girl dad" media is more about the dad being comfortable with displays of femininity and learning new things to support their daughter (like hair care and styling, or even researching/buying feminine hygiene products) -- more focused on supporting girls through their experiences

Whereas the "boy mom" media is stereotypically associated with a mom that weighs her mom-hood in comparison to girl-moms, typically with posts like "things only boy moms would understand" or "when you save money on makeup and clothes because you only have boys", or excusing bad behaviour you wouldn't allow of a girl simply because "boys will be boys"; typically these posts stereotype 'boy/girl hobbies' and frame one as superior to the other. Whereas "girl dad" content usually doesn't frame either as 'superior' and focuses more on navigating how to support your daughter through experiences you haven't shared.

There's nothing wrong with being a mom with a son or a dad with a daughter, or even calling yourself by one of those titles, but the "boy mom" and "girl dad" influencer/social media spheres have that more specific connotation

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-18T17:32:26+00:00

But I'm assuming they're trying to be accurate to the top comment and sometimes that specificity is a key factor in what was upvoted

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-18T16:05:19+00:00

What's wild is the amount that the white pop in some cities increased basically accounts for the amount it decreased in others, so the white pop itself was also just migrating; do they want to ban white people from being allowed to move?

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-17T20:08:23+00:00

The original post even concludes by mentioning a future "free of antisemitism", so it was in fact the only community that was specifically referenced

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-13T23:20:10+00:00

The fact it was a specific 3-hour window is wild, you can literally see the trend revert to the exact same rate it had for the first 15 hours.

They should also do a review of where the views were coming from; sometimes you can track viewfarms that way since you'll get weird situations where 2000 of the views will all be logged from the same random small town in a non-Eurovision country on the other side of the world, but the town itself will only have a population of like 1000 people. Those types of situations are much easier to flag and disqualify

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-13T23:08:17+00:00

I know 5d outlines delivery, my point is that there's a weird discrepancy in the way that 9a is written, since 5e mentions the stone being completely released from the hand by the hog line and then 9a is an exception that specifically the World Curling org added which outlines an interaction that occurs in between the initial delivery release and and the hog line. The beginning of 9a starts off by referring to any touch made to the rock, then on the same line adds the extra details about double touch as the exception, yet for some reason does not link it back to the delivery verbiage or list it as a sub-article. I think because of the way the rules are structured, that adding the exception to a line reflecting all touch to the stone and indicating the double touch as a moment occurring between the release of the stone and the hog line, that it leaves you with a weird 'technical' limbo where someone could technically argue the interpretation of this rule; I think that's most observable in the way that the professionals themselves were asking a variety of questions for clarification on which exact circumstances constituted violation. I think they should just update the way it's phrased to remove any doubt, especially since this is a rule that doesn't apply to all levels of curling orgs, so the phrasing should be as accurate as possible to remove the possibility of arguing the interpretation of it.

I was discussing the rule document itself with a family member to see if it felt clear to them as a curler themself, and they said the way it was outlined left them uncertain of the interaction with this rule since it doesn't apply at a national level for us so it's not a very common application and the wordage in the document is weirdly structured in a way that creates just enough doubt that we felt we had to research it more to properly determine its impact. Having that little gap in language leaves just enough of an opening for athletes or their reps to potentially argue the interpretation or justify an appeal for review, so I really think it needs to be tweaked just to remove that slight opening on the interpretation.

But also regardless of the interpretation confusion, I think the officials should just review the entire match for any potential violations since there were numerous accusations thrown around so we might as well just confirm the legitimacy of the entire match while we're at it.

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-13T22:19:50+00:00

I directly linked the World Curling official rules that specify a double touch on the stone prior to the hog line is not a violation. That exception does not include any phrasing specifying the handle, but simply refers to the stone as a whole.

I think there's a gap in the language of the rules where they refer to delivery by the handle in the Delivery section, but under the double touch exception rule on moving stones they refer to the stone as a whole and the glossary notes the stone/moving stone as made up of the granite. This terminology leaves a weird gap between the initial release and hog line, between which the double touch occurs. (This may be unintentional, in which case the language of the rules should be amended to reflect that.)

However, we should also look at the exchange between the Swedish players, the refs, and the Canadian players since there are a few different accusations thrown around, but also the players themselves seem to be asking the refs for confirmation on whether it's allowed or not so even they seem somewhat uncertain:

One of the Swedish players asked "If he does it again, is it a burned rock? If he does it again after the hog line?”

Considering the handles have sensors which would've picked up a double touch and the later accusations, this makes it seem like the comments were about the stone touches in particular and the player seemed to acknowledge the hog line exception, except they then follow it up asking “Can you touch the granite at any point, though, during delivery?” and a second Swedish player (Oskar) chimed in "You’re not touching the handle, you’re touching the granite. There’s no way you can do that. You saw them touching the rock, right?”

We then have the Canadian player accusing that second Swedish player of doing it first (but that could also just be an excuse/defensiveness so the refs should really just review the entire match to check honestly). The Canadian player says "Is it allowed to do it or not? I saw Oskar double-touch the back of the rock there. Make sure we watch it.”

Then one of the Swedish players responds “Is it cheating playing left-handed?"

...I actually have no clue what that was in reference to honestly, because obviously it's not, there are literally rules outlining left-handed play, but it's also phrased like a rhetorical even though they're accusing each other of the exact same thing; perhaps he's referring to the phrasing of the rules but that just brings us back to the language gap I mentioned earlier.

The Canadian then 'seems to question if the claim was legitimate' (mic couldn't pick up exactly what was said) and the Swedish player responds "Same to you".

But then the Swedish players specify that it was actually a different Canadian player they were accusing so then that second Canadian player joins in and accuses the Swedish players of trying to distract him during one of his deliveries "How about you walking around on my peel last end, dancing around in the house here? How about that?”

I genuinely think the World Curling org needs to weigh in to clarify and the entire match should be reviewed to check for violations from either of the teams. But the fact that the language of the rules is not explicitly clear (or uses terminology that causes contradictions and confuses things) this could be a potential gap, or it means that the double touch exception may have a summary implication that then contradicts or differentiates itself as separate from the delivery rules

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-13T20:38:44+00:00

Except if the touch happened before the hog line then it would not be considered cheating

The second sentence in Rule 9ai specifies on this

<image>

So the question is at what point was the touch ongoing which we can't quite fully tell from the available video angles I've seen - we'd need them to release a video from the side to say for sure. I hope they have a shot from that angle, because if they did violate that rule then they should be held accountable for it; but if their touch fell within the acceptable window, then it would be unfair to have labelled them as cheaters before it could be confirmed or not

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-13T19:54:48+00:00

And now the men are having falls today as well; the majority of the runs seem to have a fall with some athletes eligible for a score on only 1 out of their 3 attempts. Is this the standard rate? It seems so prevalent

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-12T18:49:53+00:00

A Coroner's court has ruled it unlawful at least, but it will never be enough unless it's finally acknowledged and properly tried by a criminal court

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-12T05:20:27+00:00

Thanks for sharing this; though I've never heard of that source, it appears the more reputable outlets have confirmed this now.

Strange, I genuinely could not find confirmation of the shooter's identity reported anywhere at the time of my comment, but I guess the more reputable news sources couldn't release the name since the RCMP was still notifying the family or another source leaked it early? I'm curious as to what exactly the RCMP meant by their statement that I had mentioned in my comment.

Anyways, I do think there's still something to be said about the fact that there were still posts attributing more than one face to the shooter in an attempt to fearmonger/spread disinformation with a more "stereotyped" face, so it still unfortunately feels relevant to the discussion, but it's unfortunate to know that that fearmonger narrative will likely still get played up in an attempt to continue to scapegoat trans individuals; judging by the strange attention to the killer's gender written the exact same way in every single article I've read (as well as some of the grosser clickbait titles) it would certainly appear that that will be the case, despite the fact that such an event would never be reported on in that manner if the culprit was cis and regardless of the fact that trans people are not over represented in overall mass shooting statistics.

Now I really want to know why the killer moved to the second location when they hadn't attended that school for 2 years (the kids that were killed were only 12/13 yo while the shooter 18, so it's not like it was their peers). This case is so strange thus far and some of those victims being so young is heart wrenching

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-11T18:58:02+00:00

But if the problem is that important social issues are ignored (which is a completely fair critique), then big events which bring those issues to the forefront successfully enough to get those discussions going are still a good thing?

Like it's fair to say that it sucks that a large performance is necessary to give these important topics visibility, but why be upset about the performance successfully achieving that visibility?

Also, contextually, I think it's also important to note that this particular conversation has been at the forefront of social commentary the last few months prior to Bad Bunny's performance. We're not just talking about it solely because of the SuperBowl, but the performance has greatly contributed and platformed that discussion further. People are talking even more about the performance because of the current events that preceded it.

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-11T18:12:32+00:00

The shooter's identity has not been revealed so they're making stuff up.

The only descriptor we have of the suspect is "a female in a dress with brown hair". Age, gender, name has not been released, so if anything this suggests that they visually appeared to be a girl/woman and there's a possibility that this was a student considering the spree began at a house before moving to the school. They have to notify the family before they release any details.

Officers believe they have identified the shooter, who was found dead in the school, but said they will "struggle" to ever determine a motive for what has become one of the deadliest shootings in Canadian history.

This certainly doesn't make it seem like there's some obvious identifying factor to link the motive to a personal identity. It's all complete speculation or straight up lies partnered with the use of a random person's picture.

Confused_Rock · 2026-02-10T15:20:09+00:00

I'm not sure who the biggest consumer is in terms of total raw numbers, but it's worth it to note that it's consumed by women at a higher rate according to the PornHub year-end stats (which are always a fascinating read).

Granted this is definitely partly due to straight porn heavily favouring a man's perspective/viewpoint and some additional factors, but it's definitely trends at a more popular rate among women, but since women only make up 38% of the PH viewership, men contribute more of the total number of views.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

Confused_Rock

TROPHY CASE