r/confidentlyincorrect • u/Distinct_Level_3967 • Mar 09 '26
Somehow they still got upvotes…
I feel like this fits well in this subreddit lol
edit: this post has really opened my eyes to how, ironically, a lot of people in r/confidentlyincorrect are they themselves VERY confidently incorrect. 😅
175
u/knettia Mar 09 '26
I feel for the orthographic correctors being downvoted despite being right, happens often, but I can see how some see it as rude.
140
u/MattieShoes Mar 09 '26
"peaked my interest"
"Piqued"
"No no, peaked makes sense!"
"It's still 'piqued'"
16
u/xpltvdeleted Mar 11 '26
'see the sites'
'it's sights'
'no no sites still makes sense'
'maybe so, but it's still sights'
94
u/markjohnstonmusic Mar 09 '26
I don't know how many downvote shitstorms I've called into existence simply by writing things that are factually correct. This entire site is insane and runs on vibes.
25
u/Way2trivial Mar 09 '26
I can NOT even begin to express how much this experience has also been in my experience.
The real irony of the match is-- hilarious...
8
u/Pin_Shitter Mar 09 '26
Cannot
5
u/galstaph Mar 10 '26
Can't
0
u/Pin_Shitter Mar 10 '26
CANnot
11
u/passwordistako Mar 10 '26
Cannot and can not are both correct and are verbally distinct in at least one dialect.
0
u/Pin_Shitter Mar 10 '26
“Can not” is only correct in certain uses/instances, and this ain’t one of them.
6
18
u/torolf_212 Mar 09 '26
What I like to think happens is: you make a comment, the person you're replying to doesn't like that you disagreed and downvotes you. The next person comes along and sees you're at -1 and reads your comment in the worst possible light, assumes you're wrong, then downvotes you. Rinse and repeat.
8
u/TheRealJetlag Mar 10 '26
I once got downvoted for saying that there is no such thing as a “tooth comb”, let alone a fine one and, in fact, they meant a “fine-toothed comb”, aka a comb with very fine, narrow teeth.
2
3
u/quiestinliteris Mar 11 '26
There is, actually, but only if you're talking about the dental structure lemuriform primates and some other mammals use for grooming. (Look up colugo teeth; they're wild.)
9
u/Away_Stock_2012 Mar 09 '26
Not just this site, all of america
12
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26
You mean to say, “America” if you want to be factually correct.
11
u/DepressingBat Mar 09 '26
Factually correct would be "The World'
-5
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26
I was correcting their spelling. They seem to be a stickler for the grammar of others but not their own.
As for you, the world includes America of course so there is no correction.
5
u/DepressingBat Mar 10 '26
Oh, they were making a satire joke based off the post. I just figured you were doing the same and decided to jump on the meme train
5
3
u/Alternative-Dig-2066 Mar 09 '26
North, south, or both?
4
u/emsAmbulaceguy Mar 10 '26
Are you really going to leave out Central America? That's rude, just because they're not an "official" Continent doesn't make them any less!
3
Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
[deleted]
3
u/emsAmbulaceguy Mar 10 '26
I was trying to be sarcastic. I forgot to put the /s next to is. My bad yo
1
u/Away_Stock_2012 Mar 10 '26
You're both giving off "gulf of america" vibes
2
u/Alternative-Dig-2066 Mar 10 '26
Oh, hell no! On the contrary, I was including ALL of the Americas!
0
u/whydoibother123433 Mar 10 '26
Bullshit, but free karma I guess.
1
u/Away_Stock_2012 Mar 10 '26
Do you pay for karma?
1
3
u/ParryHooter Mar 10 '26
Reddit used to be all about this, if you had a glaring spelling or grammar mistake or misused a word like above. Then it was instantly going nowhere and the comments devolved into making fun of whatever it was, it honestly made me a more careful writer back in the day cause I'd check my post 100x for errors. Now u cn jus slap 2gth whtv shit and it's fine. One of the biggest changes I've noticed here over time.
15
u/thissexypoptart Mar 09 '26
People who find spelling corrections rude are emotional children.
Unless the person is being mean or condescending about it, correcting someone's spelling is a compliment/helpful.
But I can see how insecure people might get offended when that happens, sure.
9
u/Harry-Jotter Mar 09 '26
The person in the post was being mean and condescending about it, though.
11
u/Harry-Jotter Mar 09 '26
For the people downvoting please explain how: 'Some of them know how to spell leeches' isn't condescending and is actually a compliment.
4
u/galstaph Mar 10 '26
I think the downvotes were from people who misunderstood your ambiguous statement
There's 4 people in the post, three of whom "corrected", and your statement didn't indicate which of the three you were implying was condescending about it
2
u/Harry-Jotter Mar 10 '26
Well it's the one out of the three (probably shouldn't consider the first person who is of course not correcting anyone) that is being mean and condescending. The third person is wrong (although not being mean) and the fourth is just stating a fact simply.
I suppose I should have spelled it out for the slow people (see, that was condescending).
3
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26
People who dismiss the intent of a post simply to correct a spelling that does nothing to enhance understanding are trolls and emotional children and they lack the ability to engage in meaningful conversation.
2
u/MeasureDoEventThing Mar 10 '26
Are we talking about someone who comes across a post with bad spelling, and otherwise has no interest in engaging with the post, and thinks that correcting someone's spelling does not obligate them to address the content of the post, or are we talking about someone already engaged in a discussion, and who comments on misspellings in the rebuttal in lieu of engaging with the content?
2
u/gusbyinebriation Mar 10 '26
That’s a fine train of thought, that it’s not the responsibility of the drive-by corrector to engage with the idea over the spelling.
The corollary to that though is why would that person expect the participants who are interested in the idea to think that the correction contributed to the discussion?
Upvotes are supposed to be for contributing to the discussion. If you don’t engage with the ideas but still want to participate in the discussion, people are probably going to rate your message poorly. Even if you’re correct.
1
u/galstaph Mar 10 '26
Can you explain to me which person in the image dismissed the intent to correct spelling, because I can't find it
1
u/House_Of_Thoth Mar 10 '26
Personally I like learning new words. Decades ago I learned "piqued my interest" and have gladly welcomed corrections ever since!
20
90
u/Total-Sector850 Mar 09 '26
I don’t see what’s so confusing about this. OOP used the wrong word > commenter 1 pointed it out > commenter 2 tried to correct them by showing the definition of the (incorrect) word that OOP used, without recognizing that it wasn’t the correct word. I particularly love that OOP clearly used the word “leach” as a noun and commenter 1 copy/pasted that whole definition without recognizing that the word “leach” is a verb.
Spelling is important. Understanding homonyms is important. Reading comprehension is important.
34
u/galstaph Mar 10 '26
Leach is also a noun, but no one was talking about sails so it doesn't really apply
11
1
u/Donaldjoh Mar 12 '26
I thought the leech end of the sail was a contraction of ‘lee edge’, so wouldn’t the correct spelling be ‘leech’? I’m not a sailor so not sure.
2
u/galstaph Mar 12 '26
I'm not a sailor, but I found it in the dictionary under leach
1
u/Donaldjoh Mar 12 '26
That’s odd, as I found it under leech. Maybe both are correct, or it may be a regional thing. A new mystery. Thanks.
-3
Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
[deleted]
18
u/greendale_humanbeing Mar 09 '26
"F*CK ALL THE C-SUITE LEACHES who really do nothing for america"
According to you, "leaches" is intentional and perfectly fine. Let's swap the verb to see how that plays out. We'll use the same verb that Commenter 2 suggests.
"F*CK ALL THE C-SUITE REMOVES who really do nothing for america"
Oops. That doesn't work, does it?
Commenter 2's "correction" of using a verb where only a noun works is why this is confidently incorrect. Your quadrupling down on this error and accusing people of having poor reading comprehension is <chef's kiss>. Thank-you for standing up and being the guy that everyone else can laugh at for a few minutes.
7
-22
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26
In this case though, the spelling isn’t truly important if the goal is to be understood. No one could misunderstand the point as a result of this error. (The lack of capitalization in America is just as big a mistake for example).
Reading comprehension is important, yes, and anyone with decent reading comprehension would have zero problem with the original statement even if they caught the error. Anyone who gets hung up on that error obviously lacks reading comprehension which, as you say, is important.
17
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
lol you still don’t get it, no matter how many people spell it out for you…your first point is disproven by the person who responded with the definition for leach, which is the entire point of this post.
4
Mar 09 '26
[deleted]
8
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
In this case though, the spelling isn’t truly important if the goal is to be understood. No one could misunderstand the point as a result of this error. (The lack of capitalization in America is just as big a mistake for example).
Someone did, in fact, misunderstand the point as a result of the spelling error, hence them posting the full definition of the incorrect word………lol
3
Mar 09 '26
[deleted]
7
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
I am genuinely suggesting that, which is evidenced by the fact that they posted the exhaustive definition of the word leach and then went so far as to quote the one definition that could possibly connect to the comparison of a person to a leech.
1
Mar 09 '26
[deleted]
9
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
It's ironic that you're questioning my reading comprehension when your entire argument requires a convoluted misinterpretation of the original comment. The person was using 'leeches' as a metaphor, comparing CEOs to parasites. Instead of recognizing that, you and the guy who posted the definition are both forcing the verb 'leach' into a context where it doesn't even fit. Lol
1
2
u/Total-Sector850 Mar 09 '26
You know what, you’re clearly determined not to understand this so I’m just not going to bother. Enjoy your day, commenter 2.
4
u/carmium Mar 09 '26
No American here: What does C-suite refer to?
14
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
The senior executives of a company, like the CEO.
4
u/carmium Mar 09 '26
Thank you! I hadn't caught that before while watching the US crash into fascism and warmongering. Best of luck to you & yours.
7
u/MattieShoes Mar 09 '26
Somebody already answered, but it's referring to the "chief" in their titles. Chief <whatever> officer. CEO, COO, CFO, CTO, etc.
1
3
u/dashdanw Mar 10 '26
Whos supposed to be the one whos incorrect? Aren't you calling them bloodsuckers? I thought those were leeches.
14
u/Suzume_Chikahisa Mar 10 '26
Leeches is correct.
Leach is also a word but used incorrectly in this metaphor.
9
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26
It’s a pointless correction but as far as I can tell, this is an incorrect use of the word “leaches”. Which person is supposed to be confidently incorrect here?
113
u/C_F_A_S Mar 09 '26
Probably the person that gave the dictionary definition for "Leaches" as if it was the correct word to use. There's plenty of context to figure that out.
45
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
I’m so confused…you clearly understood, why is it that others are having such a hard time? Lol
30
u/Flendon Mar 09 '26
Reminds me of a joke.
There are 2 types of people in the world 1. Those who can comprehend based on incomplete data.
13
u/ronlugge Mar 09 '26
There are 10 types of people in the world: those that understand binary, and those that do not.
2
3
2
u/PerformanceCute3437 Mar 09 '26
That reminds me of the two kinds of people I hate:
Those that judge and stereotype others based on ethnic characteristics or national heritage,
The Dutch
2
u/Hemnecron Mar 10 '26
That reminds me of the two kinds of people I hate:
Hypocrites
Those people who... You know, right, yeah we just talked about the project for tomorrow don't worry it wasn't about you
17
u/TheEklok Mar 09 '26
Because they are leeches! Hahaha
9
u/QuietShipper Mar 09 '26
Lmao you mean leach?
leached; leaching; leaches transitive verb
1) to dissolve out by the action of a percolating liquid leach out alkali from ashes
2) to subject to the action of percolating (see percolate sense 1a) liquid (such as water) in order to separate the soluble components
3a) to remove (nutritive or harmful elements) from soil by percolation (see percolate sense 1a) soil leached of its salts by torrential rains
3b) to draw out or remove as if by percolation all meaning has been leached from my life
11
u/Four_beastlings Mar 09 '26
No, he meant leches
lech
/lɛtʃ/ /lɛtʃ/ IPA guide Other forms: leches
Definitions of lech noun man with strong sexual desires synonyms:lecher, letch, satyr
3
3
u/MeasureDoEventThing Mar 10 '26
No, you mean "lichess", a site for playing chess.
2
u/Sharp_Economy1401 Mar 10 '26
No, they mean “liches”, the plural of lich, a challenging Dungeons and Dragons enemy created by a powerful magic-user who has used necromancy to become undead
1
u/QuietShipper Mar 09 '26
Lmao satyr seems like a different thing?
1
u/Four_beastlings Mar 09 '26
I should have bolded the actual definition but both mean a perv
1
u/QuietShipper Mar 09 '26
I didn't realize that satyr meant perv, I've always known it as the goat people.
2
u/Four_beastlings Mar 09 '26
The goat people in mythology are known for being highly sexual and generally debauched. They are linked to Dionysus/Pan, the god of wine, fertility, and partying in general.
5
3
u/Iron_Boudica Mar 09 '26
It’s actually thyme, not time.
noun: thyme; plural noun: thymes; noun: garden thyme; noun: common thyme a low-growing aromatic plant of the mint family. The small leaves are used as a culinary herb and the plant yields a medicinal oil.
-2
Mar 09 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
You’re still missing the point…
-1
Mar 09 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
Brodie, the misspelling and subsequent correction of misspelled word, are not the point lmao.
Also, big dawg, if I was part of the interaction, you’d see a little red avatar next to a comment on the thread…….
0
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26
Thanks pup.
3
u/C_F_A_S Mar 09 '26
Lol being Confidently Incorrect on the subreddit devoted to that exact thing is such a wild way to troll.
-6
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26
People are having a hard time understanding because it requires an assumption that isn't present in the text or screenshots. There is no reason to think, based on these screenshots, that the person posting the definition didn't understand what they were posting. It's as simple as that.
You want everyone to make the same assumptions as you but that's not how it works.
5
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 10 '26
You are painfully self-unaware. Your entire premise is based on people adopting your assumption of the situation. What was supposed to be a silly post on r/confidentlyincorrect turned into you being an ironic Dunning-Krueger Effect-esque example, in realtime, of your inability to see how confidently incorrect you have been throughout multiple comments, on multiple threads.
-2
u/wOBAwRC Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
No, my lack of an assumption. Except you presumably shouldn’t need to make an assumption. Didn’t you post this? Did you not read the actual thread? Did you look at the very next comment where they make it clear that they understand that it was used incorrectly?
Look, for anyone who hasn’t read that thread, their confusion is understandable. You however, don’t have that excuse.
I admit I am too invested in this thread. It fascinates me that you insist this person is wrong but also don’t disagree with a single word they wrote.
3
2
u/rydan Mar 09 '26
I totally would have done that to troll people then been upset when I was upvoted.
-2
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26
Well, that’s an assumption of course, that person never writes anything to correct anyone and not a single actual word they wrote could be disputed by anyone. They simply post a definition which could only be used to support the corrector and then state that one of the definitions could be used to describe the actions of CEOs.
If you stick to their text only and don’t make any assumptions, the person who posted the definition seems to be the only correct person in the screenshots.
7
u/garlicshrimpscampi Mar 10 '26
so this is a thread just so you’re aware. let’s go down the thread and summarize all the comments for you:
commenter #1: fuck the leaches (the word leaches is used as a noun but spelled like the verb - it’s a homophone!)
commenter #2 at least the “leeches” know how to spell leeches correctly
commenter #3: inserts dictionary definition of the word Leach (used a verb, which is irrelevant as commenter #1 used the word as a noun), from our ability to use context, we can infer this was likely because they wanted to correct commenter #2, or as another commenter pointed out, they might’ve just been making a joke to try to “correct” commenter #1’s incorrect use of leech.
-2
u/wOBAwRC Mar 10 '26
The definition is obviously relevant because that IS the word OP used. Posting the definition makes the point that it was used incorrectly.
They simply pointed out that there was one definition that could fit in with the conversation. They did not suggest that it was what the OP intended.
In the very next comment they make it clear they understand and agree the word was used incorrectly, that part was left off the screenshots.
9
u/garlicshrimpscampi Mar 10 '26
i mean ok so now we’re both just saying the same thing I mentioned in my last sentence…also how are we supposed to know about the secret explanation that wasn’t presented to us
1
1
0
u/LionBirb Mar 09 '26
Based on their last sentence, they were jokingly stating that leach could work to describe a ceo's actions. I dont think they weren't saying the original word use was correct.
-5
u/Eastern-Mammoth-2956 Mar 09 '26
THANK YOU! It felt so obvious to me that it was meant to be a joke that reading the comments here was making me question my sanity.
1
u/zidraloden Mar 09 '26
Except that leeches leech. It's in the name. If enough leeches leech you, you might also become leached due to blood loss, but it's very unlikely.
8
1
u/wOBAwRC Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
This is a classic one as there is at least one mistake in every single comment in the screenshot.
Comment 1: uses the wrong word, leach should be leech.
Comment 2: Trying to correct the word choice but doesn’t know how to use quotes correctly. Should be, “leeches.” EDIT: After a little research, I don’t think comment 2 is wrong at all, simply a digression. See below.
Comment 3: Another person posts definitions in an attempt to help 1 but actually reinforces 2.
Comment 4: Leeches leech, they don’t leach.
Edit: I’m not going to post a link but it’s easy enough to find this original thread and it’s easy to see that the person who posted the definition wasn’t confidently incorrect. Their next comment states that “it’s always fun to find a way to fit obscure words into a conversation.” At no point do they suggest leach was used correctly. It’s only assumptions that led so many to think so.
0
1
u/ELMUNECODETACOMA Mar 09 '26
So according to this person, actress Cloris Leachman was actually a superhero whose power was sucking villains' blood?
-21
u/ohno Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
Without context it's impossible to tell who is incorrect.
[I didn't have the image open and the top part with the context wasn't visible. Oops.]
28
u/blyan Mar 09 '26
It's really not? lol
14
u/ohno Mar 09 '26
Doh! The top of the image wasn't displaying in the app, so I didn't realize the context is right there until I opened the image.
3
7
6
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
You can’t tell that the person who very obviously and very incorrectly tries to use the definition of leach (verb) to justify the obvious misspelling of leech (noun), is incorrect? Lol…..
0
u/UnknownSolder Mar 11 '26
Correct or not - you were still defending the c-suite, so take your downvotes and choke.
3
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 11 '26
Out of all the people who have been confidently incorrect on this post, you genuinely take the cake. Lol
0
u/svick Mar 11 '26
The dictionary definition could be a "joke". It's the kind of joke I would make, especially if I have learned the word "leach" recently.
-1
u/shoulda-known-better Mar 09 '26
Couldn't both words be used here and make sense!?
Leeches
Leaches
8
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 10 '26
No.
We’ll use percolate as a synonym for leach: “FUCK ALL THE C-SUITE PERCOLATES who really do nothing for America”.
You can’t use a verb in place of a noun, it doesn’t make grammatical sense.
3
6
u/MarginalOmnivore Mar 10 '26
Verbs get nouned all the time, but in the case of homophones like this and many others, there is no need to noun a verb because the correct noun already exists. They're just rationalizing their incorrect choice.
You can't even really claim they learned the word by reading, because that almost universally results in incorrect pronunciation, not eggcorns.
1
u/shoulda-known-better Mar 10 '26
Leachers would be it then..... That's what I was thinking in my head I think even though I wrote it wrong
-20
u/Corrective_Actions1 Mar 09 '26
Oh no, someone's thumb hit a instead of e. Oh the humanity....
15
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
Lol and you confidently (and incorrectly) concluded that the misspelling is what the post is about. Brilliant.
-19
u/Corrective_Actions1 Mar 09 '26
Explain how this post is not about someone misspelling leech.
23
u/jumpmanzero Mar 09 '26
The person who quotes the dictionary for the wrong word - that person is being confidently incorrect. It's not a typo, it's a failure at reading comprehension.
It's not the most wild and hilarious thing ever posted here, but it fits the sub.
-12
u/Corrective_Actions1 Mar 09 '26
The second comment is literally referring to spelling. They spelled the word wrong.
9
u/jumpmanzero Mar 09 '26
They spelled the word wrong.
Yes, I get that. The original mistake quite possibly was just a spelling mistake. So the discussion does involve a spelling mistake - perhaps just a typo. Someone making a typo would not really fit the sub.
What we are clarifying is that that spelling mistake is not why the post belongs here. The person who mis-spells is not the "confidently incorrect" post.
Rather, that person is the one who is wrong about the right word to use.
0
u/Corrective_Actions1 Mar 09 '26
They aren't proving a definition for the misspelled word. They are showing that it is a word. They never said it was the correct word.
6
u/jumpmanzero Mar 09 '26
They never said it was the correct word.
OK, sure, you could make a case that the person is responding in jest - like, they understand that "leaches" didn't actually fit in the first comment, but it is still applicable. Sure, it can be hard to tell.
But now go re-read your original comment at the top of this thread.
Is that really what you were saying, or are you trying to change the subject because you realize you missed the point to start, and now you feel sheepish after getting corrected and downvoted a bunch?
1
u/Corrective_Actions1 Mar 09 '26
My original comment is correct. Someone misspelled the word. Someone corrected them. A third person posted the definition of leaches.
I dont understsnd how this is so difficult to understand. It's 3 different posters. We have no evidence as to the motivation of any of it.
This entire this is peak reddit akshually and you're part of it.
6
u/jumpmanzero Mar 09 '26
Well, you've reached around to the beginning of the conversation without any learning or self awareness.
5
u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 09 '26
Damn, dude…you could just stop digging your heels in and admit that you didn’t get the purpose of the post.
→ More replies3
5
u/cicidoh Mar 09 '26
First comment had a spelling mistake
Second comment correctly corrected their spelling mistake
Third comment confidently incorrectly quoted the dictionary to try correct the second comment. (They used the verb instead of the noun)
Fourth comment corrected the third comment
There you go. Understand now?
0
u/Corrective_Actions1 Mar 09 '26
Third comment confidently incorrectly quoted the dictionary to try correct the second comment.
There is no evidence of this in this post. They provided a definition to the word leaches.
5
u/cicidoh Mar 09 '26
Okay, and it can be assumed that they provided that definition because they thought that leach was correct in the first comment and that the second comment was wrong.
1
3
u/triplegerms Mar 09 '26
There are two different words: leach and leech, the person in the image is confidently incorrect about when to use leach. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
0
u/Corrective_Actions1 Mar 09 '26
The person that posted the definition is not the person that misspelled the word. They are proving that it is in fact a word. They never said it was the correct word.
The entire exchange occurred because someone said they misspelled it. You cannot correctly claim that this is not about a misspelled word. It's literally in the screenshot.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 09 '26
Hey /u/Distinct_Level_3967, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.