#this is not how dare you say we piss on the poor

[kittykat-25]

HOME- An S.Coups Fic

Pairing: Seungcheol x F. Reader

Genre: Comfort, Scoups savings the day

Synopsis: you've never had an issue with hiding your relationship with Seungcheol but he does when your ex gets a little too close.

A/N: this is basically the story from the SVT men’s POV. Straight from when they answer Y/n’s call.

Jeonghan sipped his beer, listening to Mingyu tell Joshua the right way to sauté something, poor soul not noticing the evil gleam in Shuas eye. “So you’re telling me I can chop up anything and put it in a pan and it’s a sauté?” He said, voice cracking from hiding his laughter. “Hyunggg” Mingyu whined making Jeonghan smile more. As close as they all were it was rare they got to spend one night free together like this. “Cheol hurry up.” Joshua yelled as the baseball game started back up, none of them really watching. Cheols phone blasting his ringtone snapped Jeonghan out of his thoughts. A warm smile filled his face when y/n filled the screen. “Choi Seungcheols phone, the other love of his life speaking!” Jeonghan said to his best friend, Cheols girlfriend as he switched to speaker. “Hannie-“ her tone alone made all conversation stop. All eyes turned towards the phone, “y/n what’s wrong?” He asked gently. She was out with her friends from the states tonight, he knew she was excited to see them but she sounded almost broken on the phone. Everything he heard was muffled but he picked up enough of the conversation to be pissed. The other three men started at the phone in horror at what her supposed closest friend was saying to her. “Oh please, we both know you don’t actually have a boyfriend. You just want to make it seem like you have it together over here. When clearly you are losing it.“ y/n’s friend spat. “What the hell?” Mingyu said as him and Wonwoo moved closer to the phone. “Fuck you.” They heard you snip back. A small smile graced his face, you were fighting back. Something you rarely did when they met you. You had met them a month after moving here and quickly won over all of their hearts, becoming a sister to many of them. You and Cheol had been dating for the past 8 months and there was nothing their leader wouldn’t do for you.

He heard the long exhale from y/n, “y/n?” He asked gently. “Please come get me.” Y/n said into the phone. Her voice cracking. Joshua walked to the door “CHEOL” he yelled at their other friend. “What?!” He snappped back walking into the room. “Y/n, we need to go. Now.” Joshua said sliding his shoes on as Jeonghan kept you calm. Cheol grabbed the phone from Jeonghan, “Baby? What happened?” He asked, noticing just how pissed his friends were as he shut the car door. ““Her friends are dicks, did they tell you your ex was going to be here.” Jeonghan asked, as the car connected the call through the speakers. Jeonghan tried to control his anger, but looking in the mirror and seeing the same protective anger from his friends. He let out a deep breath, noticing the tight white knuckle grip Cheol had on the steering wheel as you spoke. The air in the car turned icy as the sentence came out of your mouth. “He won’t stop making comments and- touching me.” You add that last bit quieter, knowing your audience well. “Shit.” Mingyu whispered as Cheols grip got tighter on the wheel, the car speeding up. It was Wonwoo who spoke, his deep voice coming out harsher “he touched you?” Y/n sucked in a breath before apologizing, “I’m interrupting guys night, I’m so sorry.” Cheol blew out a breath, “Don’t you dare apologize for calling me when you need me baby.” His eyes fill with worry, before masking back into anger. “We’re five minutes away y/n. We’ll see you soon.” Jeonghan calls to you before he ends the call.

“I’m gonna kill him.” Cheol grounds out, “no you’re not.” Joshua says calmly from the backseat. “You know you can’t.” Cheol blew out an exasperated breath. “He touched her Shua.” Joshua patted Cheol shoulder, “I know but Y/N is perfectly capable of defending herself.” “She shouldn’t have to defend herself against her friends.” Wonwoo mumbled, clenching his fist. “Get her out safely. That’s all I care about.” Cheol said, the voice of their leader silencing them all. “What about cameras? Or publicity for this?” Mingyu asked quietly. “I don’t care, Pledis can handle it or I can but I won’t let the media keep me from getting my girl when she needs me. You can stay in the car if you’re that worried.” Cheol snapped. “Cheol calm down.” Jeonghan said calmly. “We all care about y/n, we all heard the crap spewed at her. We just want you to handle this with a clear head. That’s all.” The echos of agreement from the backseat gave Cheol some peace. They pulled up in front of the restaurant, Cheol had just opened the door when he saw y/n slam a knife into the table, seemingly into her exes hand. Although judging by the lack of screaming, you had missed. “That was hot.” Mingyu whispered, “never call my girlfriend hot again.” Cheol said as he strode over to you, Jeonghan hot on his heels.

Crossing the space in record time, Jeonghan knew there was no stopping Cheol as your ex raised his hand to hit you. His friend caught his wrist as Jeonghan stepped closer to you. “I wouldn’t do that if I were you.” Cheol spat, shoving him away. Jeonghan watched your bitchy friends face light up then completely crash down as she processed who had come to your defense. “please take her to the car.” Cheol said quietly to Jeonghan. As he offered his hand to help his girlfriend up, y/n turned to walk with Jeonghan, his other friends faces a storm of rage. But y/n was smiling as she strode towards her friends. Jeonghan turned back towards the table, just as Cheol leaned down. “If you ever touch my girlfriend again, that knife will be buried somewhere else.” His voice icy, one of the friends flinched away. “She deserves so much better than any of you.” Jeonghan said looking directly at the other girl who had shrunk away before turning on his heel and following his friends out the door.

A/N: soooo apparently I can’t stop with this story because I’m feeling an epilogue with the car ride home👀👀 if anyone would be interested in that!!

Taglist: let me know if you want to be added

@hi-cherry

[hellenhighwater]

You let your cat out? Rip the bird population but go off I guess

Yeah I keep putting em in the thunderdome with Arson and Larceny but somehow the birds keep winning

[the-real-list-of-ominous-threats]

I'm going to make you see a post that isn't 100% wrong but completely ignores nuance and accuses a very large proportion of people of evils they haven't really committed in its black and white take. You will want to rewrite it to better phrase the (not incorrect) core message, but also be worried that if you do, you'll create massive arguments.

[brightlotusmoon]

https://twitter.com/deathbybadger/status/1749501813122867396

[treesofgreen]

Not understanding Izzy or understanding why people might love him sounds like a skill issue tbh.

[sergle]

There's something about like. A certain genre of posts / Online Opinions about insecurity/depression/misery/complaints that are so unhelpful that they wrap right around to being straight up hilarious. and it's the ones that are more or less written to the tone of "Feeling bad? That's gross!" Like, just so you know, don't voice your insecurities/ have low self esteem, because that's offputting! You're gross and weird. Don't be insecure about that, though. That would be stupid if you felt insecure about people disliking you for being insecure. Not attractive. You should be thinking about being as attractive as possible. You shouldn't make comments about suicide, even if you're suicidal! Keep those thoughts entirely to yourself. Make sure nobody around you knows you're thinking about this. It would Make Them Uncomfortable. It's better to keep these thoughts in your head where they can fester. Don't post OR talk to friends with complaints about you feeling miserable or depressed. Tbh people who are sad/upset a lot? Kinda a red flag! You are probably miserable because you're a bad person and you've brought this on yourself. If you don't have friends, it's because you're awful to be around. Easy! Solved the problem for you. And no, there is no nuance to this, got it? So, make sure to feel bad about feeling bad, but don't feel bad about it, because, well, that's just gross. And annoying! You might've wanted your brain rotted thoughts to be Peer Reviewed, you might have just needed to vent- you might've been hoping for some comfort, to get things off your chest. Well, don't! Don't talk about thoughts or feelings that are negative with your friends, you'd be burdening them and that's only meant for THERAPY. #SponsoredbyBetterHelp #MentalHealth like, DAMN. that's so helpful. you're so good at helping. I um really liked the part where these are all hard and fast rules that encourage keeping feelings bottled up and keeping your friends at arm's length. That's really funny of you.

[wordfather]

nice post you got there. mind if i get unreasonably mad about it and assume things about you and start arguments on your posts? i dont care im gonna do it anyway. also by 'nice' i mean evil. which you are btw

[elljayvee]

Today I'm more than usually annoyed with a pop science article, so I'm going to talk about reading these sorts of articles, why you should always be skeptical of claims in them, and some of the ways you can tell the article's author didn't understand what they were reading and told you the wrong thing.

I clicked on an article in Eating Well about low bone density and dementia, because my mother has both. There's not a lot we can do for her now, but I am a curious person. I know Eating Well isn't great at science interpretation and communication, so I'm anticipating that I'm going to need to read the original study already, going in. (How do I know Eating Well isn't a great source usually? Well, I have read it before, and it has some really clear biases if you read a few articles that aren't science communication, and so you get to know a source over time like that. Regardless of how, I'm already suspicious they're not going to do a great job.)

The article is talking about research that shows low bone density may be predictive of dementia risk. It is written by a journalist and reviewed by a dietician. Now, I don't know what review the dietician did, but she did a bad job, and also, so did the journalist, because THE FIRST red flag that goes up is pretty quick: the math is very, very clearly wrong.

This says there are 3651 participants, and that over 11 years, 688 of them developed dementia. This is 18.8% and the article calls it 19%. That's fair! Not a red flag so far, just rounding. Then it says that of the 1211 people with lowest bone density at the start, 90 people (7.4%) developed dementia, and of the 1211 with highest bone density, only 57 (4.7%) did.

This IS a red flag. It's a GIANT red flag. This red flag can be seen from SPACE by anyone who knows how percentages work.

Here's how: You have 3651 people. 1211 of them are in the low bone density group, 1211 of them are in the high bone density group, leaving 1249 people. You have 688 total dementia cases, but your high and low groups account for only 147 of them, leaving 541 cases for that middle group. That's a LOT of cases. That middle tertile, just eyeballing it, has to have about 40% of its people with dementia -- that makes low bone density look like it predicts LOWER dementia risk relative to the middle group.

I can write out the equations for you two ways:

3651 - 1211 - 1211 = 1249 688 - 90 - 57 = 541 541/1249 = 0.433 0.433(100) = 43.3%

Because I am someone who does a fair amount of stats for a living, though, what I noticed was pretty much this equation:

0.074(1211) + x(1249) + 0.047(1211) = 0.19(3651) and I knew immediately that x had to be MUCH bigger than it should, which indeed the math bears out: x(1249) = 0.19(3651) - 0.074(1211) - 0.047(1211) x(1249) = 694 - 90 - 57 x = 547/1249 = 0.438 0.438(100) = 43.8%

That 694 is because the authors rounded 18.8 to 19 earlier, not because I can't math. So, due to rounding, you get slightly different answers -- but BOTH of them point to something SERIOUSLY WRONG with the reporting. What is actually going on in that middle tertile? Where do these numbers come from? Well, lucky us, they mention the name of an author, a journal, and a date. Always be wary of pop sci articles that don't give you a way to track down the original, but giving you that way to track things down doesn't mean they aren't still doing a crummy job with their reporting, as we see here.

The original paper is Association of Bone Mineral Density and Dementia: The Rotterdam Study, published March 2023 in Neurology. This is a pretty technical article with a fair amount of math and things in parens etc. etc. and tables and lots of measurements. The table captions are often not the greatest, which makes it a bit harder to read and interpret. For example, in Table 1, items are listed as number(number) and this can be any of:

count (percent) -- this one's usually labeled in the table itself

mean (standard deviation)

median (interquartile range) -- these last two are NOT labeled in the table, so we don't know which set of numbers is which.

Great. Thanks guys. Assuming what's called a "normal distribution" mean (SD) and median (IQR) numbers will be similar, but they're not the same and I'm irritated they're conflated but OK. Soldiering on!

The original study looked at several different measures of bone density, and found only ONE of them to show predictive ability for dementia: the density of the femoral neck. This means that for their article, Eating Well should have looked at the results for femoral neck bone density, which we find in Table 2:

You have the actual numbers for 5 years, 10 years, and study end, as well as the hazard risk (HR) for each bone density tertile, with the highest tertile set as the standard. Numbers in the HR column have 1 as a reference point -- lower than 1 is lower risk than the highest tertile, and higher than 1 is higher risk.

The first thing I noticed is that neither 57 nor 90 occur in the femoral neck section at ALL. Those numbers from the Eating Well article are just not there. I also notice that the other numbers don't align even one little bit -- the number of total cases of dementia is different, for example. I do notice that the column with the 10 year followup has numbers in it close to 57 and 90 (49, 67, 86, totaled to 202) and that the overall numbers for the total study are much higher -- 201, 236, 229. Interesting.

At this point, I just straight-up search the paper for "90", and I find it in Table 2....in the total bone density section, which the paper's authors have said is NOT the section that showed possible predictive results. I search for "57", and also find that in total bone density, and also....wow the EW author straight up failed to read. This is actually worse than I thought.

Read across, these are the 5 year followup numbers (first 2 columns - count and HR), 10 year (middle 2 columns), and total followup numbers (last 2 columns).

We see our friends 57 and 90 in the 10 year columns. 90 is, as described in the EW article, in the lowest bone density tertile, but 57 is NOT in the highest bone density tertile. It's in the middle tertile. The actual number for the highest tertile is 68. Additionally, the total cases for 10 years is nowhere near that 688 number -- it's 215. We only get total case numbers close to 688 when we look at the study end numbers: it's 686, in this particular group. If we look at the study end case numbers for highest, middle, and lowest tertiles, we see WHY this particular measure can't be used to predict anything: they are 227 (highest), 227 (middle), and 232 (lowest) -- not significantly different from each other.

We can also see here that this group of people -- people who had total bone density measurements -- is not 3651, but 3633, which is listed across the bottom row. The overall STUDY had 3651, but not all of them had total bone density recorded.

Now we know that the author of the EW article did all of the following:

read the wrong part of Table 2

mixed up middle and high tertile results

reported 10 year results mixed with total followup results (this resulted in the weird math that alerted me something was very very wrong in the first place).

and the person who was supposed to review the article didn't have even the basic math skills to catch the problem -- which she absolutely should have, as a registered dietician. For giggles, I looked up program requirements for a BS in Dietetics. Programs require things like statistics and precalc -- not math heavy, but the math that alerted me to this problem is VERY basic statistical knowledge, like the kind they teach in 6th grade level statistics, which I know because it was literally in my 6th grader's curriculum this past school year. So a registered dietician DEFINITELY had enough math to catch this problem, and should have, and Eating Well should be ashamed of itself.

SO. What can we learn from this?

Well, science communication is a skill set. Some people have worked very hard to develop that skill set and are excellent at it -- but lots of people do not have it, and even those who do can make mistakes. Many, many pop sci articles are not written by trained science communicators, or people with any education in how to read scientific articles, or people with good reading comprehension, even. It's very common for pop sci articles to have these sorts of errors in them. Therefore:

Always read pop sci articles with a skeptical eye. Ask yourself:

Do these numbers line up? Usually the math in pop sci articles is not very complex -- you can often do some basic arithmetic to make sure it even makes sense, as was the case here.

Does one part of the article seem to contradict another part of the article?

Do I feel confused about what exactly I'm being told? What's not clear about it?

Am I being told about HOW something works or WHY it works or both? Are those two things being conflated somehow?

Is there a link or way to find the original research? If not, my advice is to throw the whole article away. If yes, you can go check it out -- often just looking at the abstract or results section will be enough, and abstracts usually aren't paywalled even if the rest of the article is. You would be surprised how many times the abstract says "we found X" and the pop sci article says "the researchers found Y".

Could I explain this article to someone and have it make sense? If not, why not?

Is the article confusing correlation (these things happen together) with causation (one of these things causes the other)?

Pop sci articles, like other journalistic articles, are extremely subject to bias issues from the publication they're in. A lot of people tend to read pop sci articles as neutral, factual reporting, but they aren't! I mentioned EW's biases earlier -- the one I think is most relevant to how their article is written is a pervasive belief that if you just eat the right things in the right amounts you will be thin and healthy and stave off all kinds of problems. They close their article by mentioning that, although the study's authors are clear that this connection is unlikely to be causative, and that risk factors for low bone density and dementia have substantial overlap, readers should act like it might be causitive with diet and exercise choices that promote bone health. They were so excited to get to their point about fixing your diet that they didn't pay attention to the actual science they were reporting on. (Sidenote: actual scientific journal articles are supposed to be neutral, factual reporting. They also aren't actually that, but there are some measures in place around this to try to prevent the worst effects of bias.)

It's worth brushing up some basic math skills. You don't need to know a lot! Very basic information will help you better understand a lot of articles -- both ones that are accurate and well-written, and ones that are shoddy and should not have been published. I really like Larry Gonick's The Cartoon Guide to Statistics but if your grasp of percentages is shaky, it will be too advanced. A good option might be something like The I Hate Mathematics! Book, which is pretty old but really accessible, but there's probably some newer great ones out there that I just don't know about.

[lazywitchling]

Why do I keep looking at my dash and seeing

“THEYRE FORCING ALGORITHM ON US”

followed by staff being like

“We’re not switching to an algorithm”

followed again by users being like

“HOW DARE THEY FORCE THE ALGORITHM”

[lovestory]

this is a real tag on this post

[bringinghometherain]

Not thrilled to see that "piss on the poor" reading comprehension is becoming a nationwide issue

[coinandcandle]

Adding false context to a post simply to enrage yourself is baffling and exhausting and you should not do it.

[giantkillerjack]

the average person doesn't expect you to be a perfect ethical consumer, that's not possible for the vast majority of us. but what youre saying is it's better to do nothing at all and choose the worst possible options (sweat shops, overseas shipping waste, idea/product theft, all wrapped up in SHEIN) than to put even the tiniest effort in where you can.

[they are referring to this post]

What I said was "some people are doing literally everything they can to survive and have no extra bandwidth to spend extra time and money on their purchases, and it is cruel and therefore un-punk to gatekeep punkness and add additional shame to these people's lives based on that fact."

I think it's still a good thing to try to ethically consume; I literally never said it wasn't. I had never even heard of SHEIN before. Rather, I am much more concerned about what I saw as arbitrary gatekeeping based on ability and income.

And frankly how dare you claim that I am supporting sweatshops and abuse by saying that this additional work you are demanding (in this case, presumably, vetting every clothing company you buy from) is not always possible for people. It is not a light accusation to accuse me of supporting abuse.

"How dare you say we piss on the poor", Etc. 🙄 this isn't Twitter. You are determined to enforce moral purity, but you are failing to see the nuance.

Because when I say "no extra bandwidth," I mean no extra bandwidth. This is not the "car shows it's on E but actually secretly it has a lot of gas left" situation that abled people constantly assume disabled people mean when they say they are at their limit.

This is "the car has stopped moving, and to move it I'd have to break my body pushing it." This is "at a certain point, people will hit a wall in terms of money and time and energy, and any energy spent after that comes directly out of their life force."

So the argument "okay but just spend a little more time money and energy actually" is not a valid one.

And the argument "if you are not able to do this specific task, then it means you're not doing anything else to make the world a better place" doesn't exactly impress me either. You said yourself that it is impossible to be a perfectly ethical consumer for most people.

How do you know what else people are doing to resist oppression? How many hours per week until your standards are met?What if someone works 3 jobs? Does that mean it's harder to be a good person if you're poor?? Why do you get to decide what specific avenue of bettering the world is the most morally repugnant or acceptable? What kind of proof of goodness and effort would make you satisfied enough to lay off on the shame?? Who are you helping??

Clothing is a fundamental human need, and some of us have to buy cheap fucking clothes quickly. Billionaires are buying their seventh yacht this month. The people who own fast fashion companies are abusing their workers and putting local affordable clothing stores out of business - and this applies for basically every company with price points that low because governments are failing to regulate corporations to enforce basic human rights.

I have $300 to spend on a new wardrobe as my old clothes have fallen apart or become too small. Do you have a way for me to get a new winter coat, 3 flannels, 10 shirts, 3 dress shirts, new sandals, 10 pairs of pants, 5 bras, 12 pairs of socks, and 10 pairs of underwear within that budget and also definitely 100% ethically sourced, with free returns in case it doesn't fit? Or will I simply have to use the cheap stores?

I have about an hour to spend on this per week. Many mainstream stores doesn't make clothes in my size, and I am now in *year 5* of needing an electric wheelchair and being unable to get one; plus I live up a flight of stairs, so I can't even bring my walker out with me - so thrift shopping is not gonna cover this. Should I continue to wear small and tattered clothing until I have the time, money, and energy to meet your standards?

Did you know there are more empty homes in this country than homeless people? If I decide to splurge on only 100% ethically-produced products, and I can't make rent, and I become homeless, are YOU going to be there for me?? Or are you too busy litigating the endless tiny shames of poverty in your own community?

So I ask you again, are you SURE this is where you want to direct your punk energy?

Because there are a whole lot of rich people relying on people like us punching down and to the side instead of looking up to see where the money is going.

Because energy and time, as it turns out, are limited resources. And I would never expect you to secretly have more than you claim to have.

[demilypyro]

“the rise of fascism in america is radicalizing people in europe” “so you’re claiming there was never bigotry in europe before this” no you dumb fuck read the post again

[pensivelyplayfulme]

Your text post got notes simulator

🫵you Follow

Really like the sun. I'm like a plant in that way

🪻gardens-and-fandoms Follow

omg I love this. Now I'm thinking of naming my plants after my Naruto: Reborn OCs based on how much they like the sun haha jk unless? someone tell me not to

⚰️gothanddying69 Follow

why do you all keep putting this shit on my dash. i'll kms if i have to see one more post about the sun

🤬unproblematic-and-beloved Follow

I just want to point out OP is not the only one who likes the sun! And neither are plants! You can like the sun even if you're a different person who is not a plant (like me)

#also does anyone else think its weird OP is lowkey anthropromorphizing plants? #idk I don't want to start anything #I just hope nobody takes this to mean plants should ever be kept indoors like people #sun #sunny posting

( 23,879 notes )