I don't know what to put here

It's entirely possible to champion a very important cause where literal lives are on the line, and be abusive at the same time. There is literally nothing preventing both those things from happening in tandem. And "but this is important enough that..." doesn't work. Every abuser on earth thinks their abuse is special and different.

But yeah like to be more constructive than just going "lol tumblr prose bad", really the issue in Large part that characterizes "tumblr prose" (which to be clear I don't think is a discrete thing and at most is a combination of several writing tendencies influenced by the medium of Online) comes down to the lack of real contrast in Any aspect of narrative construction, and an obsession with being quotable and constantly being at 100% of Going Hard (which go hand in hand).

In that post, the character voice is indistinct from that of the narration, and the characters quote one-liners that look Meaningful as excerpts and are borderline nonsensical as dialogue. There is no more than the faintest, most generic hints of characterization; these people exist as vague concepts to say deep words for the reader. The sentence length has little variation from its staccato beat, and so it is awkward to read and fails to complement the action or accomplish anything with the pacing (save for the slight slowdown when the torturer feels all that damp animal electricity). The timing is awkward and exaggeratedly dramatic. The description is a flowery kind of tryhard visceral and seems avoidant of describing anything too directly ("something dark and arterial" where there's nothing being accomplished by conveying uncertainty about what is currently gushing out of the injured character and the simple use of "blood splashed across the stones" would actually be 10x more effective), in a way that does disservice to what is supposed to be a torture scene, and leaves it weightless and ungrounded. In fairness to the people saying "this is good", that is MUCH easier to say when reading this fake excerpt as the standalone piece it actually is, but this kind of writing Cannot function in an actual narrative and is not what an excerpt from well constructed narrative fiction is going to look like basically ever.

It reflects a lot of very typical amateur writing issues that just about everyone has to grow out of (the minimal diversity in sentence length, simulated non-attention to scene pacing and timing), and issues common to fanfiction-influenced writing on social media (allergy to paragraph lengths of more than two sentences, little to no description of the characters or setting because, in fanfiction, the reader already knows their physical characteristics and mannerisms and it doesn't need to be lingered upon, Unlike In Original Fiction). But this particularly hits on an issue I think is semi-unique to narrative writing in the social media milieu, which is a focus on being quotable. This may not even be a conscious impulse at all But It's There. This kinda apparent terror of any moment not being as beautiful and hard hitting as possible (or for comedy, any moment not being A Joke). Everything "Goes Hard", so nothing actually does. A lot of "tumblr prose" type writing is less a narrative, more a string of quotes loosely assembled into narrative that vaguely gestures at things like Plot and Character. It substitutes depth for Suggestions of depth by utilizing stock symbolism without building it into the narrative, and by gesturing at weighty contexts without actually engaging with them. There can be little contrast or effective use of tone, pace, description when your story is a series of Hard Hitting Quotes.

I'm reading Watership Down right now and I think it's a great novel overall and can work as an example of how important it is to utilize contrast in your writing.

This segment is the lengthy first description of the titular down, which the rabbits are now encountering for the first time:

Adams is slowing the pace here to introduce us to the setting of the next segment of the book. The average sentence length is very long and keeps us lingering in the sensory detail, while still varied and thus smoothly readable. This new place is introduced by simultaneously conveying its physical description in vivid detail and conveying its feeling and character, and getting the most out of every described feature to do so. The thorn trees are "wind stunted". The air is "scented". The language takes on a very flowery character and heavily utilizes simile and metaphor. Woodland is "tumultuous with evening", sunlight filters through grass "like a wind" to the small creatures below, in contrast to laying "like a gold rind" on the hill when seen from a distance. This grandiose description is heavily functional and conveys both exhaustive physical detail and a feeling that this place is beautiful, awe inspiring to something like a rabbit, and full of life, though not without quiet hints of danger. It hits because Not Everything In The Book Is Described This Way. It means something that we're lingering like this and stopping to get a sense of this place on every possible level, and moving away from more direct, simple prose to convey the feeling of the place in depth.

This segment describes the rabbit Bigwig being found caught in a snare:

The prose here here has the opposite approach of the first excerpt. The language is concise, direct, and brutal. It only veers slightly away from the literal to describe Bigwig's voice as 'bubbling out' from his mouth, both conveying that the saliva and blood in his mouth is literally bubbling as he speaks, and implying the unsettling way his voice sounds as he's being strangled. The sentences are much shorter on the whole, as fit for the pacing of a tense and rapidly changing scene, and the timing closely complements the action - "There was a pause" not only conveys That There Was A Pause but interrupts the rhythm of this segment; the moment of uneasy stillness is echoed in the act of reading itself.

But there is a difference between, "I'm not into this style," and "this appears amateurish or clumsy", which I suspect is where some people are getting hung up. And maybe instead of "functional" or "productive", the better word to use might be, "effective". Is this stylistic trope helping to tell your story, or distracting the reader from your story? Are you successfully telling the story you want to tell, in the way you want to tell it? Can your readers generally understand and appreciate what you're trying to convey, can they get immersed in your story without getting confused or distracted by the writing itself?

My own inner term for a lot of bad writing is, "it takes me out of the story". I lose immersion. This can happen in relatively small ways, such as typos or grammatical errors. It can happen (especially in things like fic) with poor characterization and cases of "he would not fucking say that". This is actually the primary issue with what's called "flowery language" or "purple prose" - it can be very well-used at times, but if it's excessive or in the wrong places, it detracts from the story instead of facilitating it, because your readers are suddenly thinking of your writing instead of the story.

The first Watership Down except is a great example of "purple prose" used effectively, because the author is clearly trying to paint a picture with words. You're supposed to linger in the detail, you're supposed to immerse yourself in the description, and those descriptions, even when unconventional such as "sunlight like wind," are comprehensible. Whereas the infamous "cerulean orbs" often evokes a) "Oh, the author meant 'eyes' there" and b) "Wait, is this gruff, manly character thinking of his partner's eyes as 'cerulean orbs?' Because I don't think he'd fucking say/think that."

(This is also often the problem with "epithets" - the taller man, the blue-eyed man, etc. People want to use them to get around "he" or overusing their names, but if the story is from a specific character POV, for me it quickly turns into, "wait, did that character just think of his own brother as 'the shorter man'?" And that takes me out of the story again.)

So, going back to that except, a lot of what I personally picked up as "bad" was the stuff that took me out of the story they were telling and had me focusing on the writing instead.

First, the hook and whole "metallic sound" description (sorry, I've already forgotten the exact line) - I'm distracted because why would any of that sound metallic?

"Dark and arterial" - this distracted me because for a second I wasn't sure if the author was actually referring to blood, and when I realized they were, I thought, "that sure seems like a tortured workaround for just saying 'blood'".

"Not out of mercy. Out of surprise. Not loudly. Worse than loudly. Softly" - admittedly AI has made this kind of structure stick out to me like a sore thumb more than it used to. "Not X, but Y" works very well when X is an expected reaction and Y is a subversion, but it can be overused where as a reader, the first makes me think, "okay, why is he surprised ?" And the second makes me think, "okay, he laughed softly." What would maintain immersion for the first part would be explaining why he was surprised. For the second, maybe dropping the "not loudly" part and expanding on why the soft laughter is "worse", why it's low and menacing or self-aware or evokes a different mood or whatever, instead of suggesting that "loud laughing" was some expected reaction that got subverted.

The dialogue itself - this gets fuzzy because yes, it's an excerpt and I'm assuming there's missing context. But as others have pointed out, the dialogue doesn't really make sense. It feels like the characters are saying things "at" each other rather than conversing, and it feels like their responses have nothing to do with what the other person just said. Why are we talking about amoeba from Antarctica? And what does that have to do with immortality or mortality? It just reads like a string of non-sequiturs, and sometimes dialogue that makes you stop and think and figure out what they mean can be very effective, but if used ineffectively, you end up with confused and frustrated readers who can't figure out wtf your characters are talking about - and are therefore "taken out of the story."

Apart from individual lines, the except also has some issues with consistency - is the blood red or black? It probably can't be both. One more technical issue I could point out is the repetitiveness of pointing out blood in the one guy's mouth - again, repetition can be very effective, but if used incorrectly, it just feels like "you said that already, are you worried people will forget within three sentences that the guy is bleeding from the mouth?"

it took me asking three more times before she finally told me she wanted me to leave the fans where they are instead of moving them to my room or something. and I said oh! I had no intention of doing so but thank you for letting me know what the expectation is.

"You left your dish in the sink." > the hidden request is "please clean your dish, preferably right now." since it's phrased as an observation, I don't immediately intuit the request and instead think my housemate thinks I forgot about it. so I reply "oh, I know." housemate thinks i'm sassing her and gets annoyed with me. only then do I realize she was asking me to do something about the dish in the sink.

"There's hot soup on the stove." > said to me while I was preparing a sandwich. the hidden request is "please eat the soup." since it's phrased as a statement of fact, I don't immediately intuit the request and instead think my mom thinks I didn't see the soup. I did see it, but I wanted a sandwich instead. so I reply, "I saw it, thank you." mother thinks I'm being rude and gets annoyed with me. only then do I realize she was asking me to do something about the soup (and furthermore is offended I am eating a sandwich instead).

"Your bread is on the counter." > the hidden request is "please remove your sliced bread from the counter and store it elsewhere." since it's phrased as an observation, I don't immediately intuit the request and think my roommate thinks I meant to store the bread elsewhere and forgot. when I reassure her I know it's there, she gets annoyed. only then do I realize she wants me to do something about the bread on the counter.

"You can turn up the heat, you know." > said to me while I was scrambling eggs slowly over low heat. this one really confused me because of course I knew I could turn up the heat, but I had no reason to as I was only cooking for myself. when I ignored the statement because I was focused on my task and had nothing to say, my mother added, "the eggs will cook faster if you do." sure, I'm aware of this too, but I don't want to cook them faster. I won't get the texture I want. when I reply, "I don't want to, though," mom thinks I'm being rude and gets irritated, then asks me how long I'm going to take. only then do I realize she was telling me to cook faster (because she wanted the stove), instead of simply informing me I could.

"There are donuts in the break room." > a more benign example, but similar outcome. once again I hear this as a piece of information being given to me, and thank my coworker for telling me. when I don't immediately leave my desk to get donuts because I'm finishing a task, my coworker hovers and says, "well? aren't you getting some?" only then do I realize there was actually a hidden invitation, and I was supposed to respond to the hidden part and say, "I'll come get them in a minute," or "no thank you I don't want any."

as I said, I've learned over time this is something many allistic (non-autistic) people do (as well as high masking autistic folks who have learned the social rules and wear themselves out following them rigidly). despite what I've learned, my default autistic response is pretty much always to take the words at face value (especially when I'm distracted or multitasking), before remembering I have to translate them. and while I can make a decent educated guess in most cases, sometimes I just cannot and simply ask, "what are you asking me?"

unfortunately, many allistic people suffer from an inability to take words literally just as much as they struggle to speak literally, which can further obfuscate communication. this is why I emphasize gentle reassurance that you are not criticizing them, but asking them to help you, a person in need, by clarifying their intent. people generally like to be helpful and I have had moderate success with this approach.

"I'm putting the kettle on." (not just announcing what they're doing, they're expecting you to affirm whether you want tea or not.)

"Boy the trash is full." (not just voicing an observation, they're expecting you to take the trash out.)

"If you leave your window open, bugs will get in." (not just giving you information to decide what to do with, they're expecting you to close the window.)

Any variation of "do you want to do [unpleasant task]?" (you aren't actually supposed to say yes or no, they aren't asking your opinion, they're telling you to do it and saying you don't want to is rude.)

"Let me show you how to do something." (they want you to do it this way, they aren't just sharing an insight that you can choose to incorporate into your habits or not)

"Mm that food smells good." (might be complimenting your cooking, might be hoping you'll offer them some.)

"What are you watching/playing?" (might be curious about your interests, but might also want you to invite them to join.)

"Company's arriving in 15 minutes." (this one was from a mom to her kids and she wasn't just giving them a heads up, she was telling them to clean up.)

"Sorry my desk is such a mess." (APPARENTLY this was NOT a comment on her own desk but implying her COWORKER'S desk was messy and she wanted them to clean it??? sorry to the commenter who shared this one but that sounds genuinely deranged and you can't convince me this is common even for the most indirect allists out there)

to everyone saying this is simply a direct vs indirect culture issue, yes you can have communication breakdowns between people with differing degrees of directness, regardless of their neurodiversity status. what I am trying to illustrate is that autistic people in indirect cultures will miss these indirect cues at much higher rates than others, because we do not pick up on social norms at the same rate or proficiency as everyone else, because of our autism. essentially making us "direct-culture" people by default. some autistic folks do learn and practice those norms (some of us are literally traumatized into doing so), but it's something we often must remind ourselves to do, manually, and it can take a lot of extra effort. this is why high maskers end up in burn-out if they cannot learn to unmask btw.

That said, just for general interest, here's how some of these read to me, a probably-autistic Canadian:

"There's soup on the stove/there's doughnuts in the break room/food exists somewhere" is in fact a kind offer here most of the time, not a demand. They are telling me there is food and that I can eat some of the food if I want to. I'm allowed to not want the food. I'm allowed to say, "thanks, I'll grab some later (if there's any left!)" If I feel some need to be extra-soft in my refusal, I no might say I'm not hungry or I'm watching my sugar or something, but I'm definitely allowed to just not eat the food, and someone getting angry that I'm not eating the food is being weird, not me.

Addendum, especially in workplace scenarios - if the colleague is saying something like, "we're going to Eat The Food right now, would you like to join us?" They'll probably say something like that, and not just "food exists".

"You left a dish/bread/Object somewhere." I'll be honest, these read pretty obviously to me as "you left a thing in a communal space, clean it up", but part of that is in my roommate situations it was understood that nobody left things/mess in communal spaces for long. If I had food on the counter or dishes in the sink or whatever, I'm not supposed to be doing that and neither are they. So in those scenarios, no one would need to spell out "clean it up" to me, that would be clear from prior context that didn't need to be restated.

Things that read to me as passive-aggressive or rude or incomprehensible (and not as allistic traits I commonly encounter):

"I brought the fans in here because it's hot in here" - yeah, I never would have gotten "don't move the fans" from that, that's weird.

"You can turn up the heat" - I never would have gotten "cook faster so I can cook" from this, and I don't want to be wholesale insulting OP's mother here, but every example from OP's mother sounds incredibly passive-aggressive or demanding or controlling and I've occasionally met people like OP's mother and I tend to not get along with them. But I feel a need to say that there is almost certainly something else happening there than "allistic" communication, whether mom is just from a very indirect culture or something else is going on.

"Sorry for the mess (that's actually someone else's mess)!" - I actually do understand this one, just because I've witnessed it myself (directed towards me lol), but I understood it because I specifically understood that person, who was from a (different) indirect culture so would have felt rude pointing out my mess, and also was obsessively, magazine-spread neat at all times. Again, prior context. Also, only works in some kind of shared space. If that person was apologizing for their messy desk and the actual messy desk was like, in a different cubicle, that would not be easy to understand.

"Bitch" was a big part of my formative years and was also largely the reason why I began getting into feminism. It taught me that I could reclaim the word and use it as a positive thing.

My theory re: Gen X and right-wing ideology is that Gen X and Gen Z have different definitions of social progressivism, especially around identity politics.

Gen X progressivism was that identity shouldn't matter. Everyone should have the same freedoms and opportunities and absence of hostility or harassment, as long as they weren't hurting others. Feminism and gay rights in the 80s and 90s was mainly about women and gay people living freely and having access to the same opportunities as anyone else.

Gen Z progressivism, on the other hand, is heavy on identity politics, on privilege and intersectionality and accommodation and inclusion. Gen Z has surmised that equality was maybe a good start, but it's not the same as equity - that historically disadvantaged people may well need accommodations that others do not, and that people should work to be actively inclusive instead of taking a more passive "live and let live" view.

Niall is more like current generation, one of those "nice guys" if you will. The type that may not physically hurt women around him and thus think himself superior and better than the men who does but absolutely would inflict mental/psychological abuse on you and on top of that, holds no motivations to ever be a provider as someone like Ruben might have. The type that isn't helping you do the chores, but would deliberately seek out financially well off women so they can take said money. The type that feels emasculated by financially/physically bigger men and cannot do anything about them so they go around wrecking havoc on women in their lives.

No matter who you're dealing with, women are always suffering as a result.

I've seen some fans complain that the women in this show so far have seemed rather diminished - they're girlfriends or wives or mothers, but pretty well nothing else. I increasingly suspect that's intentional, because we're seeing the world through Niall's eyes, and Niall understands intellectually that women can be more than that, but doesn't especially care because that's not his problem or his struggle. Joanna, Mona, Ava, are women who hint at their own wants and needs and struggles and desires, but Niall mainly cares about them either in relation to Ruben, or in relation to propping up his own comically flimsy image of heterosexuality. If a woman isn't useful for either of those purposes, she just doesn't really matter.

- I don't think Niall gets involved with Alby anytime soon after the trial. Just as it would have been outlandish for Alby to want to date Niall after getting beaten up by his brother, Niall at the end of episode 3 feels devastated and guilty and feels like he betrayed the person who mattered most to him. I don't think he really did all that "for" Alby - rather his own sense of principle, his knowledge that Alby was innocent, his own sense of guilt, and his unwillingness to label another gay person as a "sexual deviant" - but I think interacting with Alby would be VERY painful for him for quite some time after that.

- I think Niall spends a lot of time on his own while Ruben's in jail, and between his guilt and just plain missing Ruben, he gets weird and obsessive about him, eventually culminating in writing a book about the two of them.

- Ruben, either still in prison or just out, finds out about this book and starts to soften towards Niall again, because Ruben is fucked up enough that he can probably forgive the prison thing as long as he knows he's still "running through Niall's brain." He knows Niall wants him and that's enough.

- Ruben gets out of prison, Niall continues to be weird and obsessive and tries to track or stalk Ruben, leading to a car accident, and then the hospital scene where Ruben shows up and they reconcile.

- They have some kind of conversation about Niall's sexuality, and some kind of acknowledgement of their mutual attraction. Present-day Ruben in the first episode makes some very sexually charged comments and gestures towards Niall, none of which seem to surprise him. That's all happened before. I don't think they actually sleep together, but I think something happens between them. It's possible Ruben actually gay-panics at that point and leaves. Or something else happens that drives them apart again.

- Somewhere in here, Niall reconnects with Alby, perhaps at Joanna's wedding since she's presumably friends with both of them. Now many years out from previous events, and with Niall presumably estranged from Ruben, they're finally stable enough to develop a relationship.

- Ruben gets involved with Mona again. I don't think the child we see him with is biologically his, because nothing about his past or present character indicates someone capable of holding a relationship together that long. I suspect she's a single mother, and she and her child represent a normal life and fresh start for Ruben. I don't think he's with her very long in the scheme of things, but...

- I think that's when Maura dies, and they're serious enough to go to her funeral together, where Niall (attending without Alby because he knows Ruben will be there) sees them, promptly loses his ever-loving shit, and looks for a way to ruin it, because Ruben isn't allowed to move on from him.

- I suspect Mona will be aware of Ruben's prison stint, but that Ruben will tell her a very edited and sanitized version of events tilted in his favour. I suspect Niall will somehow let her in on the truth of those events and send her running for the hills with her kid.

- THIS is what has Ruben so pissed off and looking for revenge in the present day. An eye for an eye, Niall ruined Ruben's chance at happiness and normalcy, now it's Ruben's turn to "return the favour."

and just to clarify going in: none of this means i think Niall set it up intentionally, i don't think Ruben is simply being a good bro, and none of this justifies the attack itself.

so i do think Ruben had a much different motive than what I've mostly seen ascribed to homophobic/jealous reactivity at the implication of Niall's romantic connection to Alby and to their enmeshment (the "you think that's better?" line). but i actually don't think homophobia/jealousy truly entered into the equation all that much in this instant, and i don't really think he picked up on it in a particularly noteworthy way here. it's present and underpinning the whole show, of course, but here i think it distracts from what was going through Ruben's mind in this moment which i think goes back to that first phone call.

remember that Niall calls him in tears, implies that some guy named Alby was responsible, and that Niall needed him to come visit? now, having watched what actually happened, we the audience know that Niall is ashamed, not victimized. he drank too much and peed himself in front of someone he perceived as superior and admirable (and desirable), and from whom he wanted approval and acceptance, and as far as he knew, also in front of the girls whose approval and acceptance he also wanted. add to this shame Alby's note--which imo was objectively fine but, read by someone in a highly reactive, highly sensitive to rejection state of mind, can be interpreted as a bit too mocking and crushing any chance of being liked by (or desired in turn by) this guy he likes. so we see Niall physically panic and break down, hence the emergency 'i need you' phone call to Ruben.

But. BUT. at no point do we see Niall explain any of this to Ruben. Ruben has no idea Alby simply took care of Niall when he got sloppy drunk, he has no idea Niall was calling him in shame, and not as the result of being bullied by some kid named Alby. just like Niall was bullied in high school. just like the bullying Ruben stepped in and stopped at Niall's behest. because Niall never clarified the call, Ruben arrives primed to see Alby as a threat to Niall and primed to be Niall's protector--which by his definition of protector, means he's primed for violence. you see this mentality at his cold greeting and posturing to Alby--that's not simply jealousy of another man being in Niall's life--and you see it as one of the first things he does with Niall. this is to spar with him out front, refreshing his self-defense skills and also trying to present Niall, himself, as someone not worth the risk of bullying--the sparring is a performance, and one meant to establish Niall's masculinity as much as his own, but, importantly, not above his own, and absolutely not without his permission.

so this continues on in various ways--drugs, womanizing, squaring up to strangers, generally being a dick to Alby--when this all comes to a head.

Niall convinces Ruben to apologize--something that, in the realm of toxic masculinity, means some level of submission on Ruben's part--and he does this without ever having truly clarified about that phone call, and without coming out to him (which, side note, i thought was a perfectly valid decision), thereby re-contextualizing Niall's evident spike in distress ever since. Ruben goes into this conversation with Alby, in Ruben's eyes, completely overreacting and making a big deal out his apology (his submission) all while Niall is increasingly, visibly panicked and scared. and then Niall's reactivity turns towards Alby--you know, Alby the 'bully'--and Niall (lightly, but significantly for him) physically assaults Alby to stop him from saying something out of evident fear, which results in Alby pushing Niall away, inadvertently injuring Niall in the process (Alby wanted him away, not hurt). and then Ruben, of course, completely loses it and viciously attacks Alby, not just in excess to what was actually going on, but in excess of what he incorrectly believed was going on. what he was led to believe was going on due to Niall's intentional and unintentional framing of his and Alby's dynamic.

and this is just another continuation of the episode's theme of all of these characters talking past one another, carrying out their performances of who they want to be, of the lives they want to live, either ignoring or not knowing who they actually are. all five of them view themselves as the main characters of narratives that don't reflect reality.

Ruben is playing the bodyguard role and the 'love em and leave em' charming rake. except, no, he very much isn't because Niall doesn't actually need a protector in this situation and no, he's not charming, he's just a misogynistic asshole.

meanwhile, Celeste thinks she's starring in a story about sexual awakening and being the one woman sex guru for a sweet innocent repressed virgin 'porridge man' who just needs to follow her lead to reach self-realization and happiness. She has the power to improve and transform the people around her, she is the cool one, the confident one, the hot one. But this is very much not the case. She has no power, sexual or otherwise, over Niall, she doesn't even have it over Ruben. none of them even really see her as cool except for Niall, who mostly has eyes for Alby and Ruben. yes he wants her approval, but not because he sees her, only because he sees her front and wants to meet it with his own and be perceived as straight. it has nothing to do with her specifically.

and then you have Joanna, who thinks she's in a friends style sitcom where she and all her flatmates are going to automatically be a nice neat little family. which is just an entirely unrealistic expectation to have and unreasonable standard to hold people to. she thinks that Celeste, this woman she literally just met, is already her girl bestie whose loyalty she can rely on. but this isn't true in the slightest, Celeste immediately makes out with Ruben despite his and Joanna's quickly established 'thing' and doesn't hesitate to continue even when Joanna is overtly prompting them to stop doing it in front of her. Celeste even tells Ruben and Niall that Joanna was off peeing in a bush despite that information being completely unnecessary for them to know and despite it being something that Joanna would clearly not want them to know. and these girl code BFFs don't have their cute boy and his bad boy brother built in BFs either, with Niall being unresponsive and quick to abandon them both for Alby and with Ruben being a womanizing dick by flip-flopping between them and literally spitting in her face. even Alby isn't interested in being the fun GBF, either, nor is he particularly prone to participating in their friends group in general with his tendency to more hang out on the sidelines and around Niall.

and Alby. oh Alby. Alby thinks he's in a narrative about drawing out poor Niall from the closet, about showing this endearing guy what being out and proud can really mean for your confidence and sense of self. about how being true to yourself doesn't just mean being out, it means leaving those who look down on you for it behind and freeing yourself from the hold they have on you. about how it gives you a strength to withstand and overcome the hatred, even when that hatred is expressed physically. but this isn't the the whole story. no, Niall isn't ready to come out of the closet, and no, your confidence and self love isn't always going to protect you. he isn't even the benevolent guide and inspiration he wants to be as, instead of abandoning this role and pulling back to fit his own boundaries when Niall is unwilling to participate at his desired pacing, Alby opts for trampling Niall's boundaries and attempts to out him to his violent, unpredictable brother. despite him only knowing these people for a matter of days, despite that never being his choice to make or his risk to take. it is a truly horrible thing for him to do, or rather, attempt to do (but he still didn't deserve to be attacked like that)

Niall, for his part, is frantically trying on all these different narratives himself, desperate to find a niche for himself that will fit in. is he a late bloomer coaxed out by Celeste? is he the straight nice guy friend in Joanna's sitcom? is he the gay guy who's about to walk out of that closet and have everything be okay with his super hot considerate BF? he doesn't know, only that he definitely has a role as Ruben's brother, no matter how fucked up that role may be. so he uses that role to hit the eject button on the other narratives whenever they become stressful or inconvenient, no matter how he jerks around the others' emotions and investments in him.

and note that every single one of them EXCEPT FOR ALBY abandons the story lines they were trying to make happen: Celeste ditches her sexual awakening guide narrative with Niall pretty quickly and opts for fun with Ruben, Joanna has enough of their bullshit and kicks them out dead-voiced, friends sitcom be damned, and Ruben ends his 'protector' story by physically injuring Niall and overtly threatening him via finger guns as he's shoved into the police car. Niall bails on all his narrative attempts, and he even loses/abandons his ever-present, ever-reliable role as Ruben's brother from another lover by the end.

To add onto this, your post makes me realize how interesting it was that Niall felt the need to lie at all. Alby wasn't bullying or threatening him, Niall was just feeling anxious and insecure and wanted his batshit crazy Ruben-shaped security blanket.

The implication is that Ruben would not have come out there if Niall was just feeling anxious or insecure or missing him. Ruben initially seems to actually try to reassure Niall - dude, you're getting paid to sit on your ass at school for four years, how bad can it be? He only starts to talk about going out there himself when Niall indicates that Alby is some kind of physical threat to him. And he only talks about staying there/that Niall should have brought him in the first place, after he gets there.

Which... on the one hand, there probably is some fucked up truth to the idea that it wasn't "acceptable" to either of them for Ruben to visit just to visit, just because Niall missed him or wanted to see him (the arguably more honest reason he tells Alby). Ruben will drive all night if Niall says he needs him, but Niall needs to need him for something. Not just need to see him. The visit needs a purpose. Protecting Niall! That's easy and a pretty well guaranteed way to get Ruben running to him.

But also, the implication that Ruben Would Not Have otherwise. He started off just offering Niall some encouragement. But the idea that Ruben was prepared to be semi-healthy about their separation and let Niall live his life and see him at Christmas or whenever, and not come running at the first moment of anxiety, only for Niall to be the one to actually make up a lie in order to SLAM the "violent codependency" button to immediately stitch them back together, is... something.

This is ABSOLUTELY a perfectly fine footpath.

In fact, with how much space I’m seeing here, it is entirely plausible, that the European hordes will just create a temporary little Wanderweg right next to the highway. With that much space they might not even have to interfere with traffic.

the grass is not a permanent feature. there just happens to be a chunk of it there. the side of the road can vary from grass to swampwater ditches to steep embankments to absolutely nothing within a very short distance.

they will call in every highway enforcer in the state and mass incarcerate the lot of you before they allow you to Darwin Award yourselves across 6 lanes of traffic into an international incident or, (their real concern) impede the progress of the single most important north-south interstate corridor in america, ball kicky game be damned.

You are a US American motorist driving along i-95 during rush hour. You see a pedestrian dart in front of you. You have 2 seconds to make a decision:

Attempt to stop (cause multi-car pile up and kill pedestrian anyway)

Attempt to swerve #1 (cause semi truck next to you to jackknife, cause pileup, kill pedestrian anyway)

Attempt to swerve #2 (into ditch/swamp/retaining wall, 85 mph/137 km per hour, killing yourself, your passengers, and a bunch of other people on the road when your car inevitably sends pieces shooting off into traffic. Also, the pedestrian gets run over by the person behind you, who was NOT expecting a pedestrian and didn't even see them)

So, Reddit being Reddit, had already tracked down the origins. Turns out there were some disgruntled Europeans that were unhappy with the fact that the train operator was price gouging the tickets that were usually $12 so that they were $150+ to get from the hotel to the MetLife stadium. Roughly 900m away (through a swamp). The European complaining was like “it’s 900m I’d rather fucking walk it”. Not that he was going to walk it, just that he was pissed off at the price enough that he’d jokingly consider it.

In swoops a blue check mark rw dude who, like the above, took him literally and explained swamps and how roads work in a very condescending manner (not like the above). The European response was so clearly sarcasm (paraphrasing: “I’m strong! I can make it across a swamp! I’m not paying $150 dollars for a 15 minute train ride”) but it went over the blue check mark guy’s head.

So he doubles down, insisting that they’ll all get run over on the I-95 and Europeans are arrogant and stupid. So what did the original guy do? After a bit of back and forth about terrible infrastructure he starts Smooth Sharking the blue check mark guy! No it’s totally fine! I’ve crossed big roads before! Swamps are nothing! Blue check guy does not recognise the sarcasm or the obvious rage bait so doubles down again.

By this time, it’s got enough traction that more Europeans show up to rage bait this one guy with stuff like “nah the whole Dutch fan walk is gonna walk alongside the I-95!” “You can’t do that you’ll get killed by trucks!” “It’s fine they can’t kill us all there are too many! Some will make it to the match!”

Of course it make blue check mark guy very angry and he started ranting about Europeans being arrogant enough to walk. He was also equating it with them not helping with that Special Operation Tango Toddler has going on, which like okay dude. But others only saw his rants about it and that began to spread. Once it reached TikTok and folks were making videos accusing Europeans of white supremacy (yes that is a thing that happened) it genuinely spun out of control to what we’re seeing now.

I don’t doubt some idiot Europeans have indeed tried to justify doing this, there’s one on this post (along with one person clearly smooth sharking. Like c’mon, circling grass and writing “path” is not a serious response, it’s rage bait) but the idea that “European football fans think they can walk this” isn’t real. No one has earnestly being saying they’ll do it. More people have been shocked by the dominance of car led infrastructure than have thought “yeah I can cross an 8 lane interstate highway.”

Tl;dr: This is manufactured outrage based on one guy getting smooth sharked because some other guy thought a $12 ticket suddenly being $150 was a bit fucking much for such a short journey and he’d rather walk than pay that.

This is ABSOLUTELY a perfectly fine footpath.

In fact, with how much space I’m seeing here, it is entirely plausible, that the European hordes will just create a temporary little Wanderweg right next to the highway. With that much space they might not even have to interfere with traffic.

the grass is not a permanent feature. there just happens to be a chunk of it there. the side of the road can vary from grass to swampwater ditches to steep embankments to absolutely nothing within a very short distance.

they will call in every highway enforcer in the state and mass incarcerate the lot of you before they allow you to Darwin Award yourselves across 6 lanes of traffic into an international incident or, (their real concern) impede the progress of the single most important north-south interstate corridor in america, ball kicky game be damned.