“Bitch” Vs. “Jerk”: Where We Discuss Who The Writers Screwed This Week/Season/Ever

[DeeDee79]

37 minutes ago, Airmid said:

Neither John or Dean's deal were something to be thankful for and neither came out of a place of actually being for the other person they were saving. 

I can agree that John's deal wasn't entirely for Dean's well being; if it was he wouldn't have dropped the save Sam or kill him burden into his lap. However, I totally disagree that Dean's deal was not 100% for Sam. He knew that he would only get a year to live and he was adamant that Sam not find a way to stop it for fear that he would die as well. All he wanted was for his brother to live. I don't get how it makes him selfish when he's the one that was going to pay the price by burning in hell and I've never understood any argument that has tried to paint him as such.

Edit: Or what @gonzosgirrl said much better than I did.

Edited January 20, 2020 by DeeDee79

[BabySpinach]

If sacrificing your life/soul for another can't be considered selfless, what CAN????

[gonzosgirrl]

And if I'm just going to bitch about all things deal related...  Dean was upset over John's deal because he didn't think himself worthy of it. It killed him that John was suffering Hell and that he'd taken away Sam's father (too). Sam was mad at Dean, and made it all about himself and how it was going to effect him. IMO, there's a selfish person in this equation, and it ain't Dean (or John).

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

If sacrificing your life/soul for another can't be considered selfless, what CAN????

It is unless it's Dean doing the sacrificing. 

3 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean was upset over John's deal because he didn't think himself worthy of it. It killed him that John was suffering Hell and that he'd taken away Sam's father (too).

Good point that I forgot all about. In Crossroad Blues he even considered the demon's offer of giving Dean a deal to switch places with John. If not for the fact that his job was to get Evan out of his deal he may have taken it. 

[Castiels Cat]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And if I'm just going to bitch about all things deal related...  Dean was upset over John's deal because he didn't think himself worthy of it. It killed him that John was suffering Hell and that he'd taken away Sam's father (too). Sam was mad at Dean, and made it all about himself and how it was going to effect him. IMO, there's a selfish person in this equation, and it ain't Dean (or John).

I know people think Carver made mistakes however I think he was right to focus on rehabilitating Sam by keeping him human and having him go dark again to save Dean without any supernatural mumbo jumbo and then have him actually own up to it and take responsibility and APOLOGIZE for how he acted to Sully and Dean and have another character, albeit Lucifer, point out his behavior to him. 

These things people are pointing out are why Carver needed to do it. Kripke messed up and Gamble messed up... imo. They gave their "hero" baggage.

[Airmid]

42 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

He already proved he was willing to lose Sam* when Sam told him that's what he wanted (Swan Song).

To save the whole world. Shooting Sam sans soul isn't really the same thing in my book because while immensely traumatizing, it's far worse knowing Sam's still in hell and he needs to put down this thing wearing his brother's face. But Swan Song? Sam done break the world - Dean may have broken the first seal but he didn't know going in. Sam ran all the lights on his way to his kill Lilith party. 

Sam had to fix his mess. 

For the next couple of seasons, their relationship is better, with Dean doing what he did to find a reaper/Death understandable because of the issue he had and that he had safe guards in place, as much as he was able.

I hate the whole Gadreel thing because there was a way to get an Angel-In-A-Sam without all the other nonsense: Dean realizes Sam's going to die, would like to save his brother so if that's the case, Sam can at least finish what he started. Dean uses his brain/king of hell in his trunk/finds a reaper and finds out that Sam needs heavenly help. Dean lures a couple of angels, one ends up being Gadreel. An actual conversation happens with Sam in his headspace who says 'okay, don't want to know about angel in me due to Luci flashblacks'. Boom, storyline is set up, no ridiculous Dean just opening praying to angels, no stupid brotherly angst later because both are responsible. And no Dean goes too far questions, again.

17 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

If sacrificing your life/soul for another can't be considered selfless, what CAN????

Demons pray on the emotionally distraught for a reason. Dean talks about this issue in Crossroad Blues:

DEAN
Did you ever think about her in all this?
 

EVAN
I did this for her.
 

DEAN
(advancing on him)
You sure about that? I think you did it for yourself. So you wouldn't have to live without her. But guess what? She's going to have to live without you now. But what if she knew how much it cost? What if she knew it cost your soul? How do you think she'd feel?

And:

DEAN
Come on. That really what you think? How could he do it?
 

SAM
He did it for you.
 

DEAN
Exactly. How am I supposed to live with that? You know, the thought of him... wherever he is right now. I mean, he spent his whole life chasing that... yellow-eyed son of a bitch. He should have gone out fighting. That was supposed to be his legacy. You know? Not bargaining with the damn thing. Not this.

 

Huh, it's like all the problems I have Dean's already put a voice to them before he sold his own soul. Dean was well aware of the suffering involved in such a thing and how much it was affecting him.

And for the record, I think Dean's done a lot of heroic things and made a lot of heroic sacrifices for Sam. Selling his soul wasn't. Doesn't make him evil or wrong, just that it was an exceptionally poor decision. 

[gonzosgirrl]

19 minutes ago, Airmid said:

You sure about that? I think you did it for yourself. So you wouldn't have to live without her. But guess what? She's going to have to live without you now. But what if she knew how much it cost? What if she knew it cost your soul? How do you think she'd feel?

Just because Dean thought/accused a husband couldn't live without his wife, doesn't automatically mean he couldn't live without his brother. Maybe the husband (as he said) couldn't stand to see his wife dying in pain because she was... dying in pain.

 

21 minutes ago, Airmid said:

DEAN
Exactly. How am I supposed to live with that? You know, the thought of him... wherever he is right now. I mean, he spent his whole life chasing that... yellow-eyed son of a bitch. He should have gone out fighting. That was supposed to be his legacy. You know? Not bargaining with the damn thing. Not this.

Huh, it's like all the problems I have Dean's already put a voice to them before he sold his own soul. Dean was well aware of the suffering involved in such a thing and how much it was affecting him.

And I still maintain that the bolded was about John, not about Dean. He never accused him of being selfish for saving his life.

I don't deny that Sam had reason to be upset that Dean did it (same as Dean was upset over John), or that survivor's guilt isn't a real and terrible thing. My problem is with the idea that it was selfishly motivated. Not in Evan's case (just because Dean said it doesn't make it so) nor in John's or Dean's. And for the record, not in Sam's either, later, when he tried to make his own deal (in S4).

[DeeDee79]

29 minutes ago, Airmid said:

Huh, it's like all the problems I have Dean's already put a voice to them before he sold his own soul. Dean was well aware of the suffering involved in such a thing and how much it was affecting him.

The difference is that Dean's suffering was because he felt guilty. As seen in Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things he only knew that John had given his life for his but he didn't know how he had done so. After he knew what happened he then said that he should have gone down fighting and his legacy should have been killing the demon instead of bargaining with it. No where did he refer to John as selfish or make it about his own suffering. Also Sam was the one to tell Dean that John did it for them because they were his legacy. Funny how that attitude was missing when it came to Dean's deal for Sam.

Edited January 20, 2020 by DeeDee79

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, Airmid said:

Sam got the same kind of weight - save Dean or watch him die and pass into eternal torment.

Dean had the weight of KILLING Sam.  That's quite different than watching someone die and not being able to stop it. IMO

 

[Airmid]

36 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And I still maintain that the bolded was about John, not about Dean. He never accused him of being selfish for saving his life

I'm not saying that Dean thought John was selfish with that quote - it was showing Dean knew damn well what the aftermath felt like.

But previously, he did also state there was some selfishness to this whole thing even if he never says that about John himself. He goes off on the guy and also has mixed feelings about helping any of the deal makers at all during the case.

While this is the episode they get confirmation about the deal John made, Dean had a good idea about the whole thing as he was about to die and was accepting of that before suddenly being fine and John dropping dead in front of him. Sam and Dean pointedly do not discuss John's death. It's only when it's hitting him over the head do we see Dean's thoughts and yes, not all of them are pretty.

It's why I so dislike how they did Dean's deal in many ways, because he should have known better. If there was some other driving force behind the deal, like an offer for Sam in heaven if Dean went to hell, it would at least be different. But they had a different story plotted out at that time so we got Dean on a fast track to hell with no brakes. 

[catrox14]

41 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And I still maintain that the bolded was about John, not about Dean. He never accused him of being selfish for saving his life

I agree and concur that's clearly about John.  He chased the YED all his life.  Dean and Sam didn't, not knowingly until they were adults.

[Airmid]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean had the weight of KILLING Sam.  That's quite different than watching someone die and not being able to stop it. IMO

Dean had the weight on his shoulders that he may need to put Sam down to keep him from becoming a monster if he couldn't help him with hope that his brother could be at peace.

Sam got to watch his brother be torn apart by hell hounds unable to help him and know he would never find peace.

But no, some how it's a competition as to who had it worse and apparently having to put a bullet in someone you love to stop them is worse than having to watch them scream in agony as their body is shredded in front of you. When instead, it's both of their worse nightmares come to life - they just failed differently. 

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sam was mad at Dean, and made it all about himself and how it was going to effect him. IMO, there's a selfish person in this equation, and it ain't Dean (or John).

31 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Also Sam was the one to tell Dean that John did it for them because they were his legacy. Funny how that attitude was missing when it came to Dean's deal for Sam.

Wait, so Sam has one time when he asks Dean "how could you have done this to me" and all of a sudden Sam is making it all about himself from then on? How did that happen? I remember Sam from the beginning telling Dean that he was grateful for all Dean had done, with that one question in a moment of weakness, and then he was back to telling Dean he deserved extra time with the "Doublemint Twins" and other indulgences, because he thought Dean deserved to get that with all that was hanging over his head.

Sam even did Christmas for Dean despite not wanting to at first because of the reminder that Dean would be gone... but Sam sucked it up and did it, stringing lights, making egg nog, trying to give Dean a Christmas. And he did everything he could to try to save Dean, not because of what it would do to him (Sam), but because he didn't want Dean to be suffering because of him.

I really didn't see Sam being all "woe is me" in season 3. I saw Sam feeling guilty, because he thought Dean making the deal was his (Sam's) fault. I'm not sure how that is selfish myself. I thought it was fairly understandable...

Where the bad behavior came in was in season 4 when Sam couldn't save Dean and then the real guilt kicked in - and came out in ugly, ugly ways.

[catrox14]

Just now, Airmid said:

Dean had the weight on his shoulders that he may need to put Sam down to keep him from becoming a monster if he couldn't help him with hope that his brother could be at peace.

Sam got to watch his brother be torn apart by hell hounds unable to help him and know he would never find peace.

But no, some how it's a competition as to who had it worse and apparently having to put a bullet in someone you love to stop them is worse than having to watch them scream in agony as their body is shredded in front of you. When instead, it's both of their worse nightmares come to life - they just failed differently. 

It becomes a competition when Dean's being made out to be selfish for his choices but Sam isn't and that is on the writing. 

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

It becomes a competition when Dean's being made out to be selfish for his choices but Sam isn't and that is on the writing. 

Exactly. 

[ILoveReading]

11 minutes ago, Airmid said:

But no, some how it's a competition as to who had it worse

The show turned it into a competition.  It didn't matter hat Dean was actually in hell and being tortured.  The narrative turned Sam into the victim and expected Dean to just get over what he went through in five minutes.

This is why there are so many metas about how Sam failed Dean after he got back from hell.

 

[Castiels Cat]

No. Human Sacrifice is never okay. That is what the bad guys do to get what they want. Dean and Hendricks were right to say no even if everyone died because Lilith killed them anyway. It was a watershed moment for San's character and a wake-up call for Dean and viewers that something indeed was wrong with Sam. The Winchesters kill humans that perform human sacrifice to get what they want whenever they encounter them.

[AwesomO4000]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It becomes a competition when Dean's being made out to be selfish for his choices but Sam isn't and that is on the writing.

Sam was very much punished by the writing for his choices from what I could see. He was the one the apocalypse was blamed on. Taking up with Ruby was branded as a betrayal. And I'm not saying at all it was a good thing, but the way it was framed seemed to be implying that Sam was obligated to live his life the way Dean would have wanted, because he owed Dean that. Which that, in my opinion, is a little iffy, considering Sam had no choice concerning Dean's sacrifice, and as @Airmid rightly said, it was actually forcing him to live a nightmare. So however Sam had to cope - even if it was badly - in my opinion, should have been given a bit more empathy in its portrayal, but it wasn't.

We got to see Dean's agonized speech to Sam's body, so we understood why Dean made the choice he did to make the deal. We never saw the same aftermath for Sam. No flashbacks to burying Dean. No flashbacks to what lead to Sam drinking demon blood for the first time (A HUGE event horizon to just yada yada yada past, in my opinion.) We got a few relevant flashbacks, sure, but the writers spent more time showing us that Ruby picked up a "recycled body" than they did giving us Sam's point of view.

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

This is why there are so many metas about how Sam failed Dean after he got back from hell.

What's a "meta?" I'm assuming it's blog type posts?

The writing made it quite clear myself. Sam got blamed for the apocalypse - despite a whole cast of characters helping out including Castiel, Uriel, and Michael himself - and this was harped upon for seasons to come. As was how Sam "betrayed" Dean while giving us very little point of view as to how Sam got there to begin with (despite initially setting it up in season 3).

I don't think I would want any more myself. I thought the show already did quite enough.

10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

It didn't matter hat Dean was actually in hell and being tortured.  The narrative turned Sam into the victim and expected Dean to just get over what he went through in five minutes.

I didn't see this myself. If the narrative was supposedly turning Sam into the victim, then in my opinion, the writers would've given Sam a more sympathetic point of view and not turned him simply into a demon blood drinking mark for Ruby. The narrative started out with giving Sam a sympathetic point of view with him happy that Dean was back and being sympathetic, but that fairly quickly got eroded and thrown by the wayside. Then it became more about the "mystery" that ended up with a reveal buried in an episode full of huge reveals, so why even leave it a mystery to begin with? I would rather have had the point of view.

And I thought the same thing in reverse about season 9.

All these bad things happened to Sam he didn't ask for, but somehow even Gadreel was turned into a "misunderstood" victim, and Sam was turned into a crappy person (and later a hypocrite), because he didn't forgive Dean right away. In both cases, however, somehow Sam was the one who ended up wrong and starting an apocalypse because of it.

[AwesomO4000]

19 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

The good guys CANNOT SACRIFICE A VIRGIN. The fact that Sam was willing was a sign that he was corruptible. Dean, Hendricks and everyone else was against the plan because they were the good guys, the heroes.

They didn't do a great job writing themselves out of their original set-up for s 5. It was a mess. This is a hot mess.

1 hour ago, Castiels Cat said:

No. Human Sacrifice is never okay. That is what the bad guys do to get what they want. Dean and Hendricks were right to say no even if everyone died because Lilith killed them anyway. It was a watershed moment for San's character and a wake-up call for Dean and viewers that something indeed was wrong with Sam. The Winchesters kill humans that perform human sacrifice to get what they want whenever they encounter them.

Which is why I argued that Dean's plan to say "yes" to Michael - in terms of the show's philosophy - was bound to get a negative reaction by the narrative. Even though it wasn't directly human sacrifice, it would've been a Machiavellian deal that potentially could sacrifice half the planet to save the other. In my opinion, it wouldn't have made much sense for the show to portray Sam considering sacrificing one to save the others as bad and a sign that he was corruptible and then show Dean's plan to potentially sacrifice half the planet to save the rest as not bad and a sign that Dean was corruptible. That hadn't even been Dean's philosophy up until as late as "Sam Interrupted" - "I have to save all of them."

So "Point of No Return," too, was taking the stance that Dean was buckling under the pressure and becoming "corruptible" by Michael. To me, it would've made no sense in terms of show philosophy to have sided with Dean's idea to sacrifice half the planet. Yes, the scale was larger, but that becomes a slippery slope... How many lives to save is not enough to sacrifice for? How many is too many lives to sacrifice? (And apparently the answer to the last is: one.)

So even with a planet in the balance accepted, Dean's plan did have an element of human sacrifice. I'll give Dean that he earned it that he was going to choose who would be exempted from that potential sacrifice (Sam was doing the same in Jus in Bello, after all), but the overall idea was still basically human sacrifice, so the show was going to go the direction that it was wrong. Logic wasn't ever a part of it.

If the argument is that Dean and Henricksen were right to say "no" even if everyone died anyway, then arguably Bobby and Sam were right to say "no" even if it meant the entire planet was potentially in peril. That is the stance the show narrative had taken and so was staying with it.

[ahrtee]

12 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So even with a planet in the balance accepted, Dean's plan did have an element of human sacrifice. I'll give Dean that he earned it that he was going to choose who would be exempted from that potential sacrifice (Sam was doing the same in Jus in Bello, after all), but the overall idea was still basically human sacrifice, so the show was going to go the direction that it was wrong. Logic wasn't ever a part of it.

If the argument is that Dean and Henricksen were right to say "no" even if everyone died anyway, then arguably Bobby and Sam were right to say "no" even if it meant the entire planet was potentially in peril. That is the stance the show narrative had taken and so was staying with it.

You're talking apples and oranges.  One is *potentially* killing half the world (which, after all, was just taking the word of Zachariah, who was arguably biased and a liar), and the other is specifically holding one person down and cutting out her heart.  One is definite/concrete/immediate, the other is  just a possible ending and, especially since they had been fighting against Destiny all season, not at all certain.  

If you're calling it human sacrifice to gamble with half the world, then what was Sam doing with an all-or-nothing gamble ("fiddle of gold against your soul") that he could save everyone as opposed to just half?  

  

[AwesomO4000]

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

If you're calling it human sacrifice to gamble with half the world, then what was Sam doing with an all-or-nothing gamble ("fiddle of gold against your soul") that he could save everyone as opposed to just half?  

The same kind of thing as Dean's gamble in "Jus in Bello." Dean pretty much said in that episode that they weren't going to sacrifice Nancy. They were going to act like human beings, even if it meant everyone dying. (So basically gambling everyone there.) He even said "Look, if that's how you win wars, then I don't want to win."

But by "Point of No Return" Dean was saying that "nuclear was the only option." So even Dean thought that there would be innocent casualties.

As for the potential outcome, that was pretty much what Castiel thought would happen as well. It was what Michael wanted to happen. Zachaiah told Adam the same thing, and if he was going to lie, why wouldn't he say, say "yes" and everyone will be saved. That would've been a more effective lie.

And even if they did win, the goal after all was "peace on earth" - meaning basically the angels' idea of peace. What that would mean for the people left we don't know, but Castiel hinted in the final episode that Dean had wanted free will rather than peace and that's what he (Dean) got... insinuating that "peace" wasn't going to include free will.

In my opinion, the show made it pretty clear that whatever was going to happen if the Michael showdown happened and Michael succeeded in killing Lucifer, it wasn't going to be business as usual. There were going to be serious consequences. At least that was the impression that I got.

[Castiels Cat]

The spell Ruby suggested in Jus in Bello was black magic. It was a human sacrifice to perform a black magic ritual using a virgin sacrifice

 Of course it was wrong. They would execute a witch for doing the same thing and have... see various and sundry.... for instance. 

And Belphager offered a similar get out of jail card for bigger stakes in 15:2... all he needed was a fresh human heart. Dean said NO because they do not kill humans for magical spell ingredients. Well Dean doesn't. He was totally against using the BotD to remove the MoC because it was a black grimoire and lo and behold it involved killing a human as part of the spell's ingredients which I know many of you hand wave and absolve Sam for.

The only time Dean ever crossed his ethical line was in s13 when he was desperate to save Mary and he held Kaia at gunpoint to force her to do what he wanted despite the fact that she was terrified of spirit walking. He is is usually the moral compass.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Castiels Cat

[Castiels Cat]

On 1/17/2020 at 1:48 AM, BlueSapphire said:

Dean can also be a manipulative jerk, but that’s really hard to admit, isn’t it?

Tell that to all of his many bros... the ones that Sam is so jealous of...

[ILoveReading]

Another that that really annoyed me about that episode is Chuck telling Sam that finishing the spell was all him,

Its not about Sam being allowed to be smart.  Its the fact that show went there in the first place.  They needed to reinforce that Sam is still special.

If it was reversed, there is no way they'd do that for Dean.

[ahrtee]

48 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

In my opinion, the show made it pretty clear that whatever was going to happen if the Michael showdown happened and Michael succeeded in killing Lucifer, it wasn't going to be business as usual. There were going to be serious consequences. At least that was the impression that I got.

Yes...because of course both Winchesters always back down when threatened with "serious" (or even world-shattering) consequences.  They always take the chance that they can pull something out of their asses.  Usually it works, but not always (first rule of hunting: you can't save everybody.)  

But to me it's the difference between, say, the Benders:  shooting someone in the cage or turning them loose and giving them a head start.  It may end up the same, but at least there's hope.  

[Castiels Cat]

21 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Another that that really annoyed me about that episode is Chuck telling Sam that finishing the spell was all him,

Its not about Sam being allowed to be smart.  Its the fact that show went there in the first place.  They needed to reinforce that Sam is still special.

If it was reversed, there is no way they'd do that for Dean.

It might not have been a compliment. I thought that it was patronizing myself. 

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, Castiels Cat said:

Jus in Bello was black magic. It was a human sacrifice to perform a black magic ritual using a virhin sacrifice

So it was okay for Dean to decide to say "yes" to Michael and potentially sacrifice half of the planet to save the rest - against his usual stance - just because it wasn't dark magic?^^^

To (maybe***) quote Mulder "I is skeptical."

It's not like the angels in charge here were good guys. Dark magic or not, they did not have humanity's well-being in mind. And they were already powerful beings, but having Dean as a host would've made Michael even more powerful.

I'm not saying that I don't understand Dean's dilemma here - I do - but in terms of the show stance, sacrificing is sacrificing, and these people wouldn't even have had a choice.&&& I don't think based on previous show philosophy that Dean's stance could be seen as a defensible one.

Just my opinion on that.

^^^ For me, such an argument would be splitting hairs.

*** I may be remembering wrongly.

&&& It could be argued that at least Nancy could have decided - and she was okay with it. Dean's potential "sacrifices" wouldn't have had a choice.

Edited January 21, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[AwesomO4000]

57 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

But to me it's the difference between, say, the Benders:  shooting someone in the cage or turning them loose and giving them a head start.  It may end up the same, but at least there's hope.  

But both would be wrong on the Bender's part.

[Bergamot]

51 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

In my opinion, the show made it pretty clear that whatever was going to happen if the Michael showdown happened and Michael succeeded in killing Lucifer, it wasn't going to be business as usual. There were going to be serious consequences. At least that was the impression that I got.

There were already serious consequences. Events had already been set in motion.  Lucifer had been released from the Cage, and he wasn't just waiting around for the battle with Michael to commence.

He was summoning the Four Horsemen. War caused a townful of people to kill each other in "Good God,  Y'All". Lucifer sacrificed another whole townful of people in "Abandon All Hope" in order to summon Death. Then there were the people killed by Famine in "My Bloody Valentine", and those killed by people coming back from the dead in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid".  In "99 Problems" there was the appearance of the Whore of Babylon, a manifestation of the Apocalypse whose purpose was to cause humans to damn themselves to Hell. And at that point Pestilence had not even gotten started.

And the effects of Lucifer being set free were not just limited to the people that Dean and Sam saw die. In "Sympathy for the Devil" and "Free To Be You and Me", they hear fragmented news reports of global disasters. Sam refers to some of them in the "The French Mistake" (although in that alternate universe they never took place): "The whole earthquake spike. You know, the 9.2 in Rome? I mean, the 8.5 outside Boston? The whole east/west tsunami chain?"

People were already dying. Who knows how many, or how long it would be before the total would match or even exceed the number that would die in the battle between Michael and Lucifer?  Because Lucifer wasn't going to stop. And then they found out in "Point of No Return" that God was not going to do anything about it. 

Also, remember, until Dean shamed Gabriel into helping them, so that they learned how to use the Rings, they had no way to trap Lucifer. Before then there would have been no point to Sam saying yes to Lucifer; it would just have led inevitably to the final battle. As far as Dean knew in "99 Problems", there were no other options besides him accepting Michael in order to stop Lucifer, and at least save some people.

Personally, I've always thought it was seeing what was happening to the souls of the people in "99 Problems" that tipped the balance for Dean. Because what he saw was that people were not just going to die, they were going to end up being damned to Hell. It was too much for him to bear, and he had to try to do something. Maybe he should have just kept looking for another way out, even though it did seem hopeless, but I think if I had been in his shoes at that point, I would have done the same thing.

 

[DeeDee79]

15 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

There were already serious consequences. Events had already been set in motion.  Lucifer had been released from the Cage, and he wasn't just waiting around for the battle with Michael to commence.

He was summoning the Four Horsemen. War caused a townful of people to kill each other in "Good God,  Y'All". Lucifer sacrificed another whole townful of people in "Abandon All Hope" in order to summon Death. Then there were the people killed by Famine in "My Bloody Valentine", and those killed by people coming back from the dead in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid".  In "99 Problems" there was the appearance of the Whore of Babylon, a manifestation of the Apocalypse whose purpose was to cause humans to damn themselves to Hell. And at that point Pestilence had not even gotten started.

And the effects of Lucifer being set free were not just limited to the people that Dean and Sam saw die. In "Sympathy for the Devil" and "Free To Be You and Me", they hear fragmented news reports of global disasters. Sam refers to some of them in the "The French Mistake" (although in that alternate universe they never took place): "The whole earthquake spike. You know, the 9.2 in Rome? I mean, the 8.5 outside Boston? The whole east/west tsunami chain?"

People were already dying. Who knows how many, or how long it would be before the total would match or even exceed the number that would die in the battle between Michael and Lucifer?  Because Lucifer wasn't going to stop. And then they found out in "Point of No Return" that God was not going to do anything about it. 

Also, remember, until Dean shamed Gabriel into helping them, so that they learned how to use the Rings, they had no way to trap Lucifer. Before then there would have been no point to Sam saying yes to Lucifer; it would just have led inevitably to the final battle. As far as Dean knew in "99 Problems", there were no other options besides him accepting Michael in order to stop Lucifer, and at least save some people.

Personally, I've always thought it was seeing what was happening to the souls of the people in "99 Problems" that tipped the balance for Dean. Because what he saw was that people were not just going to die, they were going to end up being damned to Hell. It was too much for him to bear, and he had to try to do something. Maybe he should have just kept looking for another way out, even though it did seem hopeless, but I think if I had been in his shoes at that point, I would have done the same thing.

 

Great post with excellent points.

[AwesomO4000]

3 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

As far as Dean knew in "99 Problems", there were no other options besides him accepting Michael in order to stop Lucifer, and at least save some people.

Personally, I've always thought it was seeing what was happening to the souls of the people in "99 Problems" that tipped the balance for Dean. Because what he saw was that people were not just going to die, they were going to end up being damned to Hell. It was too much for him to bear, and he had to try to do something. Maybe he should have just kept looking for another way out, even though it did seem hopeless, but I think if I had been in his shoes at that point, I would have done the same thing.

Which is why I said that I understood Dean's dilemma here, but that, fair or not, according to what the show had shown in the past, I don't think the show was going to take Dean's side on this. It would go against the stance they had previously taken. Because the people were already dying argument could also be given for "Jus in Bello," too - as well as saving people who were possessed and still alive, but in danger - and Nancy was even willing to be the sacrifice, because she wanted to save those people. But still it was presented as a bad thing... something human beings don't do if they want to keep their humanity. The argument was that they should find another way.

[ILoveReading]

 

26 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Nancy was even willing to be the sacrifice, because she wanted to save those people

They were doing this on Ruby's say so.  Sam was willing to trust a known lier.  Given how Ruby was Sam's puppet master, in context this comes across as a test.  Was Sam willing to cross that line and sacrifice an innocent.  She was trying to corrupt him right from the start.  So I dont see anything good coming from following Ruby's plan. 

 

26 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Which is why I said that I understood Dean's dilemma here, but that, fair or not, according to what the show had shown in the past, I don't think the show was going to take Dean's side on this

The problem here  is also the fact that at that point Lucifer was extremely week.  it was said he was sucking back demon blood by the gallon trying to keep his vessel from imploding. 

Imagine if it was the 7th game of the world series.. Its like walking the he bases loaded to make sure Babe Ruth gets to the batter's bo. and then sending in a rookie picture.  No manager would.

No plan where you give your enemy his strongest weapon, fuel to make it  stronger and than counter attack with your second weapon makes any sense. 

Plus, we've see that Dean is to wiggly for an arch angel to deal with.   No way do I believe that Dean would just sit back and watch Michael destroy the earth.  He would have fought back and maybe even been able to reach Michael. 

So Sam's plan was just as reckless because he wasn't even strong enough to overcome ghost possession, and we (the audience) are supposed to believe he can over come Lucifer? Its seemed arrogant that Sam would even think that and then immediately say "I'm the least of your"  Not exactly the guy you want to pin your hopes on to save the world.

 why would you give Sam demon blood.  Why make his vessel stronger.  If Lucifer had to fight to keep it together, it makes it easier for Sam to take over.

It was bad writing but Sera wanted Sam to be the big, damn hero with Dean having as little impact as possible.

This will always be a sore spot for me

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by ILoveReading

[Castiels Cat]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So it was okay for Dean to decide to say "yes" to Michael and potentially sacrifice half of the planet to save the rest - against his usual stance - just because it wasn't dark magic?^^^

To (maybe***) quote Mulder "I is skeptical."

It's not like the angels in charge here were good guys. Dark magic or not, they did not have humanity's well-being in mind. And they were already powerful beings, but having Dean as a host would've made Michael even more powerful.

I'm not saying that I don't understand Dean's dilemma here - I do - but in terms of the show stance, sacrificing is sacrificing, and these people wouldn't even have had a choice.&&& I don't think based on previous show philosophy that Dean's stance could be seen as a defensible one.

Just my opinion on that.

^^^ For me, such an argument would be splitting hairs.

*** I may be remembering wrongly.

&&& It could be argued that at least Nancy could have decided - and she was okay with it. Dean's potential "sacrifices" wouldn't have had a choice.

You are trying to compare two completely different things.

It is wrong to do black magic and to take a human life in order to get an ingredient to. Complete a magic spell for personal gain, even if that gain seems to benefit many.

Performing a  black magic ritual and taking a human life, PEFORMING VIRGIN SACRIFICE, is not at all the same as saying yes to an angel or archangel and allowing them to use your body for a period of time even if their prescribed and foretold role is to participate in the Apocalypse.

There is no equivalency here.

And Nancy was not sacrificing herself. She was not going to perform the ritual by herself which is what Crowley did in s 13.  Nancy was going to be sacrificed, ie. Slaughtered or butchered, with Sam's blessing at Ruby's suggestion. You are sugarcoating it because you favor Sam I suspect. I am a moralist and I found it to be horrific and a harbinger of how low and dark Sam would go.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Castiels Cat

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

You are trying to compare two completely different things.

It is wrong to do black magic and to take a human life in order to get an ingredient to. Complete a magic spell for personal gain, even if that gain seems to benefit many.

Performing a  black magic ritual and taking a human life, PEFORMING VIRGIN SACRIFICE, is not at all the same as saying yes to an angel or archangel and allowing them to use your body for a period of time even if their prescribed and foretold role is to participate in the Apocalypse.

There is no equivalency here.

And Nancy was not sacrificing herself. She was not going to perform the ritual by herself which is what Crowley did in s 13.  Nancy was going to be sacrificed, ie. Slaughtered or butchered, with Sam's blessing at Ruby's suggestion. You are sugarcoating it because you favor Sam I suspect. I am a moralist and I found it to be horrific and a harbinger of how low and dark Sam would go.

Great points. 

[Casseiopeia]

42 minutes ago, Castiels Cat said:

You are trying to compare two completely different things.

It is wrong to do black magic and to take a human life in order to get an ingredient to. Complete a magic spell for personal gain, even if that gain seems to benefit many.

Performing a  black magic ritual and taking a human life, PEFORMING VIRGIN SACRIFICE, is not at all the same as saying yes to an angel or archangel and allowing them to use your body for a period of time even if their prescribed and foretold role is to participate in the Apocalypse.

There is no equivalency here.

And Nancy was not sacrificing herself. She was not going to perform the ritual by herself which is what Crowley did in s 13.  Nancy was going to be sacrificed, ie. Slaughtered or butchered, with Sam's blessing at Ruby's suggestion. You are sugarcoating it because you favor Sam I suspect. I am a moralist and I found it to be horrific and a harbinger of how low and dark Sam would go.

That scenario only works if you go on the assumption that Michael wasn't as big a Dick as Lucifer.  Neither one had any more love of humans than the monsters or demons did,  Which is why Dean chose free will instead of angel condom. Black magic, angel wars...there isn't really any difference to the dead person.

[DeeDee79]

4 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Black magic, angel wars...there isn't really any difference to the dead person.

I think that there's a difference between saying yes to an angel to try to save humanity and giving a demon the ok to hold down someone and cut out their heart.  

[Bergamot]

Yeah, I am afraid that this particular exercise of whataboutism does not work for me. I tend to agree with the comment above, that this is like comparing apples and oranges.

I think a better comparison to Dean's decision would be if Ruby told them they had to pull some kind of switch (metaphorically speaking) that would allow them to defeat the demons but could destroy them all as well. And suppose they do it, and are trying to pull everyone to safety, and they can't get Nancy out in time and she dies. Except in the case of Ruby's actual plan, Nancy herself was going to be the switch that had to be pulled. Ruby wasn't telling them to risk Nancy's life; she was telling them to take Nancy's life.

I think that Dean had reached the point where he really felt that humanity was doomed. He talked about the angels having the only lifeboats on the Titanic. Dean had lost all hope, and felt that the whole ship was going down. So he was going to pull the switch -- say yes to Michael -- and hope that at least some people could make it onto the lifeboats and be saved. Yes, maybe he shouldn't have given up on trying to find some other way to stop Lucifer that would save everybody -- well, at least everybody who wasn't already dead -- but like I said, I understood why he had reached that point.

14 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

That scenario only works if you go on the assumption that Michael wasn't as big a Dick as Lucifer.  Neither one had any more love of humans than the monsters or demons did,  Which is why Dean chose free will instead of angel condom.

If you are talking about why he changed his mind after deciding to say yes to Michael, I don't think it had to do with a realization that "both sides are dicks". I don't think Dean ever had any illusions on that score. He had just lost all hope that he could find another way, but then realized that he couldn't let Sam down and so he chose to keep trying.

 

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

And Nancy was not sacrificing herself. She was not going to perform the ritual by herself which is what Crowley did in s 13.  Nancy was going to be sacrificed, ie. Slaughtered or butchered, with Sam's blessing at Ruby's suggestion. You are sugarcoating it because you favor Sam I suspect. I am a moralist and I found it to be horrific and a harbinger of how low and dark Sam would go.

Why are some saying that I'm making an excuse for Sam? I didn't condone what Sam considered doing. That was not what my point was even about at all. Though you aren't going to see me sugarcoating what Dean was considering doing either, my point was that the show / narrative / writers were never going to condone Dean sacrificing some people to save the rest.

As for Nancy, she consented to and wanted to be sacrificed to save the others. She told everyone to shut up so that she could make that opinion known. Just because she wasn't actually going to cut her own heart out doesn't mean she wasn't willing to have it done. That Sam considered going along with it for a moment showed how desperate and broken he was, but that doesn't negate that Nancy was offering the equivalent of throwing herself on a grenade - in other words: sacrificing herself - to save everyone else.

4 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

Performing a  black magic ritual and taking a human life, PEFORMING VIRGIN SACRIFICE, is not at all the same as saying yes to an angel or archangel and allowing them to use your body for a period of time even if their prescribed and foretold role is to participate in the Apocalypse.

There is no equivalency here.

But that "prescribed and foretold role" includes potentially destroying half the people in the world and choosing that fate for them. Even if only a fraction of that were killed, that is still consenting to help kill a whole lot of people to save the rest.

I don't see how that is apples and oranges. It's more like comparing Granny Smith and MacIntosh apples. Entirely different flavors but still both apples. Still both considering condoning some people dying to save the rest. That is the equivalency.

You can try to dress it up by highlighting Dean's understandable despair and desire to do something, but that doesn't change the fact that part of his plan was to facilitate a whole bunch of people dying in the effort to save the rest.

It sounds more "noble" because there isn't a "black magic ritual," but there would still likely be a lot of dead people - men, women, and children - with an uncertain future for many of the people left behind afterwards, and it was something that Dean was deciding for everyone else. That was not a Dean in a good place.

3 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

I think that there's a difference between saying yes to an angel to try to save humanity and giving a demon the ok to hold down someone and cut out their heart.  

It was saying yes to an angel to save potentially half of humanity. Both scenarios were going to result in people being killed to save the rest.

And it was Nancy herself who was giving Ruby the okay to use her to save the rest of the townspeolpe and any potential future victims of those demons, because the demons would've supposedly been vaporized.

3 hours ago, Bergamot said:

Dean had lost all hope, and felt that the whole ship was going down. So he was going to pull the switch -- say yes to Michael -- and hope that at least some people could make it onto the lifeboats and be saved. Yes, maybe he shouldn't have given up on trying to find some other way to stop Lucifer that would save everybody -- well, at least everybody who wasn't already dead -- but like I said, I understood why he had reached that point.

As I said above, I understood it as well, but it didn't change the potential outcome. And Dean's lack of hope was a potential problem and was why the narrative was going to favor Sam's plan. It was crazy and likely not to work, but Sam had hope that it would. Sam wanted to try to save everyone that was left. Dean was willing to doom as much as half the planet to save the rest, because he didn't have that hope, so he was willing to go for the "sure thing" (which in my opinion wasn't all that much different than the "sure thing" of sacrificing a willing Nancy.) That lack of hope likely would've made him more susceptible to Michael's will as well. Dean wasn't talking about fighting Michael or talking him out of it. If he had, that would've made it different for me, but he wasn't, so it didn't.

The narrative was never going to condone sacrificing half the planet to save the rest, no matter how desperate Dean was or how crazy Sam's plan was in comparison. The writers had already established that that wasn't a thing that should be condoned. That has been my point all along.

[Bergamot]

I guess we have reached an impasse, but I can't resist having one more go at it. 🙂

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 As I said above, I understood it as well, but it didn't change the potential outcome. And Dean's lack of hope was a potential problem and was why the narrative was going to favor Sam's plan. It was crazy and likely not to work, but Sam had hope that it would.

Dean's lack of hope that they would find another way cannot be equated with a lack of hope that he could still get people into the lifeboats. Dean had hope that what he was planning to do could save people, just as Sam did.  Except if Dean was wrong, a lot of people might die, while if Sam was wrong, everyone might die.

The difference in Dean saying yes and Sam saying yes was not that Sam's plan was better because he had more hope. It's that it was a plan based on the fact that they now had a way to trap Lucifer, which they didn't before. The writers could just as easily have had Dean then say, "Great! Now we have a way to trap Lucifer, and no one else has to die! I am going to say yes to Michael, take control over him, and make sure Lucifer falls into that hole!" The only reason -- the ONLY reason -- that this didn't happen is that the writers had decided to take Dean out of the story at that point, and Sam was going to be the hero to save the world. It had nothing to do with Sam being more hopeful or his plan less risky.

Remember, in comparing Dean's considering saying yes with Sam considering agreeing to Ruby's plan, an important point is the word you yourself use in describing Dean's choice: "potential". This wasn't a mathematical equation: remove half the population, and the other half will remain. And I think this is where Dean was coming from a different place than Sam was in considering Ruby's plan. Potentially, if Dean said yes to Michael, half the population might die. Or maybe more. Or, if things turned out differently, maybe less -- or maybe no one else would die. If Sam said yes to Ruby, Nancy definitely -- not potentially -- would die. She had to die, and at Ruby and Sam's hands.

So why was that such a big deal, if we are only talking about the loss of one person? Because it wasn't just about one person. Because of what ILoveReading said:

10 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

They were doing this on Ruby's say so.  Sam was willing to trust a known lier.  Given how Ruby was Sam's puppet master, in context this comes across as a test.  Was Sam willing to cross that line and sacrifice an innocent.  She was trying to corrupt him right from the start.

Ruby was trying to condition Sam to obey her, to trust her judgment, to do what she said when she said it was necessary, to believe that the ends would justify the means. To believe her when she said that it was all up to him to save everyone, even if it meant going down a dark path. To feel that he had gone down that path too far to make it possible to come back.

And, of course, Ruby succeeded. She didn't succeed in making him kill Nancy, because Dean stopped her. But it was a step in her conditioning of Sam, that he was willing to consider crossing over that line. That's why Ruby went to them afterwards to rub in the fact that people had died anyway, to reinforce that conditioning. It was a first step toward Sam's decision to kill Lilith, resulting in the return of Lucifer, the beginning of the Apocalypse, and the death of a lot more people than just Nancy.

In spite of what you assert, that the writers were refusing to "condone" the risk that Dean was taking by deciding to say yes, I never saw anything in the text of the show, or anything in what the writers said, to indicate that they intended or wanted us to see Dean as about to step over the line that Sam was about to cross with Nancy. They absolutely would and could not do this. Why not? Because they knew that they were going to have Sam say yes -- at the potential risk of the loss of not just half the population but of everyone -- and they were going to frame it as a noble and heroic thing to do.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Bergamot

[Casseiopeia]

...

Edited January 21, 2020 by Casseiopeia

[AwesomO4000]

Yes, our focus of comparison is different:

3 hours ago, Bergamot said:

The only reason -- the ONLY reason -- that this didn't happen is that the writers had decided to take Dean out of the story at that point, and Sam was going to be the hero to save the world. It had nothing to do with Sam being more hopeful or his plan less risky.

I didn't say that Sam's plan to trap Lucifer was less risky. I said that it was more risky. Just as Dean's plan to save the people in the police station in "Jus in Bello," was more risky. Dean was saying there that his plan wasn't necessarily a good one. He admitted that the plan might not work, but it was one that preserved their humanity, because it didn't sacrifice one to save the many.

Dean's plan shouldn't have worked, but the writers decided at that point that they were going to show Dean as the heroic one and right one in the narrative and show that Sam was wrong to consider a plan that was supposedly more foolproof but that didn't try to save everybody. That's why Dean's plan worked: because the writers already had that outcome in mind.

4 hours ago, Bergamot said:

And I think this is where Dean was coming from a different place than Sam was in considering Ruby's plan. Potentially, if Dean said yes to Michael, half the population might die. Or maybe more. Or, if things turned out differently, maybe less -- or maybe no one else would die. If Sam said yes to Ruby, Nancy definitely -- not potentially -- would die. She had to die, and at Ruby and Sam's hands.

And in the "Jus in Bello" scenario, everyone else still alive would survive, the demons would be killed - likely saving even more people - and Lilith would lose a bunch of support. If Lilith happened to be in the area, they might even get her, too (unlikely, but...) Though I used "potentially" because it was technically true for Dean's "PoNR" plan,  the chance of no one else dying with Dean's plan was pretty slim to none, and Dean knew this - which is why he had conditions to his saying "yes," to make sure certain people would be protected. Dean wouldn't have had those conditions if he had been going into it without the mindset that at least some people would be sacrificed.

4 hours ago, Bergamot said:

In spite of what you assert, that the writers were refusing to "condone" the risk that Dean was taking by deciding to say yes, I never saw anything in the text of the show, or anything in what the writers said, to indicate that they intended or wanted us to see Dean as about to step over the line that Sam was about to cross with Nancy. They absolutely would and could not do this. Why not? Because they knew that they were going to have Sam say yes -- at the potential risk of the loss of not just half the population but of everyone -- and they were going to frame it as a noble and heroic thing to do.

But I think they did have indications that they thought Dean was stepping over a line. The line and message was a little different, but it was there in my opinion. It was there with Bobby's outright saying "but it wouldn't save everybody" (emphasis Bobby's) after hearing Dean's plan. (A very similar accusation against the "one for the many" argument.) It was there with Bobby's story of how he doesn't give up even though he had lost hope himself and considers giving up many, many days, which echoed Sam's argument in the beginning of the episode of how Dean was doing this because had given up hope. It was less effective with Castiel's outburst, because Castiel has issues with accepting responsibility with things, so the message got muddled in his self-righteousness, but Castiel did have a point concerning Dean abandoning Team Free Will (that Dean named and created, pretty much) and giving up on his quest of resisting Michael and Zachariah.

But for Sam's future plan to even get a chance to work, everything hinged on Dean not going through with his Machiavellian plan and instead agreeing that there maybe could be a "better" (more "human") way. It hinged on Dean deciding not to sacrifice the few to save the many... in other words the same message Dean and the narrative gave in "Jus in Bello." Just because a plan was more likely to succeed, doesn't mean they should use it if it meant doing something questionable like sacrificing innocent people. Dean's (paraphrase) "If this is how we win the war, I don't want to win."

The narrative even had a sum up at the end of the episode where Sam and Dean talked about how Dean almost stepped over that line, but he didn't. It wasn't the exact same line Sam considered stepping over in "JiB," but it was a very similar one. And for me, "Point of No Return" did address that in several places throughout the episode.

And yup, the writers had the plan they were going to risk everyone rather than go with the less risky, but more humanity costly plan, and they were going to frame it as the noble and heroic thing to do.... pretty much the same way they did the same thing in "Jus in Bello." It just took a few more episodes to get there - and it required Dean changing his mind to return to his previous "we don't sacrifice people to save the rest," stance to get there. And this episode was that very important and necessary step in that message.

Just my opinion on this.

[ahrtee]

24 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Just my opinion on this.

Well, if you honestly believe that killing one innocent person in cold blood while others stand around and watch is better than "going down swinging," you're entitled to your opinion.  I just don't understand how you could get that the show would be all right with that, considering everything the boys had done to save individuals before that.**  *shrugs*  And how guilty/angry they were when someone was sacrificed in their place.

 

**ETA: After this, things got a little more nebulous; but in general Sam has continued to be willing to sacrifice others to the "greater good" and Dean has continued to want to "find another way," though they both seem willing to sacrifice others to save each other. 

And IMO they alternate being considered right/wrong.  

Edited January 21, 2020 by ahrtee
clarification.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And yup, the writers had the plan they were going to risk everyone rather than go with the less risky, but more humanity costly plan, and they were going to frame it as the noble and heroic thing to do.... pretty much the same way they did the same thing in "Jus in Bello." It just took a few more episodes to get there - and it required Dean changing his mind to return to his previous "we don't sacrifice people to save the rest," stance to get there. And this episode was that very important and necessary step in that message.

I'm confused. Is this plan the one where Sam says yes? Because that fight was never going to be zero-human loss unless Sam overpowered Lucifer immediately and got him into the cage. The only options at that point were Sam controls Lucifer, the world wins, Lucifer controls Sam, the world loses. I don't know for certain if they knew that Michael/Adam was a go, but if they did, they had to know he wouldn't be as powerful in his second-rate vessel if he had to fight Samifer. If they didn't, it's even worse, because there would have been no challenge to Samifer at all. So the risks of Sam's plan were off the charts, especially when he never gained control over anything that possessed him before that. As it turned out, there was 'only' whatever losses happened in the time between Lucifer taking off with Sam's meatsuit, and the showdown at Stull, but that was only because Dean showed up and inspired Cas and Bobby to show up (eventually) too. Barring that, with no little green army men to bolster him, we have to assume the events of The End would have ensued.

ETA: All that is to say, I don't think there was ever much difference between the plans in terms of human costs. But I do have to wonder what a fully powered Michael!Dean would have done to a withering Nickifer had Dean said yes when he wanted to. I know, all angels are dicks, and Archangels are Archdicks, but the Michael that Dean spoke to in The Song Remains The Same seemed sincere enough. And who knows, maybe Dean could've seen those little green army men and evicted him after it was over. 😉

Edited January 21, 2020 by gonzosgirrl

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Well, if you honestly believe that killing one innocent person in cold blood while others stand around and watch is better than "going down swinging," you're entitled to your opinion.  I just don't understand how you could get that the show would be all right with that, considering everything the boys had done to save individuals before that.**  *shrugs*  And how guilty/angry they were when someone was sacrificed in their place.

That's not my opinion, and I actually think the opposite in terms of what the show is all right with, but I must entirely suck at getting my opinion across, because again, this wasn't my point at all. Sorry about that. Let me try one last time.

In my opinion, it appears that the show's philosophy / stance / whatever you want to call it is: Going down swinging and risking potentially everyone is morally better / more human / whatever you want to call it than sacrificing one or a few to save all of the rest, even if that second option has a much better chance of saving those left. Period. And to that end and because of that, also in my opinion, both the sacrificing Nancy plan and Dean's say "yes" to Michael plan are examples - maybe different examples, but nonetheless examples - of sacrificing the one or few to save the many, so the writing was never going to support either of those plans. No matter how risky the "save everybody" plan was, that was going to be the plan the show supported most. (And in my opinion, the save everyone plans were both really risky.)

That's it. I really had no other point or opinion to all of my posts.

Because as for how I feel about it, I personally don't know. I think I fall somewhere in the middle. The submarine is probably going to fill with water before it can reach the surface. Do you A) send someone down there who can fix the problem, but you know is gonna drown doing it to save everybody else or B) not sacrifice that person and everybody might potentially drown in the most likely very slim chance you have to reach the surface first?

Answer: Hell if I know! Glad I don't have to make those kinds of decisions, and I'll make sure to avoid such decisions in the future, thank you very much, because my mental health couldn't cope. But I'm gonna respect the hell out of anyone who tries to make those decisions, even if they stumble a bit and maybe make the wrong one sometimes. And I can sympathize with either position - likely both - because as this show used to do rather well: They both have a point. Both sides have pros and cons. Both sides have risks. Both sides have consequences. Both options are generally crappy as hell and will involve massive guilt.

The show may fall on one side in this case - the save everyone side - but the writing still showed the other side as well, so the viewer can make up their own mind which side he/she falls on.

Or do like I did and think "Glad I don't have to make that friggin' decision, cuz nuh uh. No way."

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I'm confused. Is this plan the one where Sam says yes? Because that fight was never going to be zero-human loss unless Sam overpowered Lucifer immediately and got him into the cage. The only options at that point were Sam controls Lucifer, the world wins, Lucifer controls Sam, the world loses.

Yes, and the way the "Jus in Bello" predicament was presented, the choice was very similar, in my opinion.  The exorcism via recording would either work, or if for some weirdo reason the ritual had to be done in person / the tape machine failed / the demons bamphed in and broke the recording machine, speakers, or whatever and the plan didn't work, pretty much likely everyone would die. That was the choice Dean - and the show - made because as far as I can tell that is their position. Who cares if the plan makes little sense and has huge risk involved? It's the plan where Dean, Sam, Castiel, whoever, is trying to save everybody rather than outright risk people. So that's the plan they are going to back. It's the plan that lets them keep their humanity.

I'm not endorsing whether that's right or logical or anything like that - because as you may be able to see from my post above: hell if I know - but in terms of the show, that's how it is. That time (season 5), it just happened to be Dean's plan and the way he was approaching it that fell on the Machiavellian side of the scale, and so was the one rejected. Sam's plan - as prone to failure as it was - posited trying to save everyone (because as Sam presented it, that was the plan, surprise Lucifer and immediately get him into the cage) so there you go. That meets the show's "criteria" of a moral / humane / whatever plan.

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

As it turned out, there was 'only' whatever losses happened in the time between Lucifer taking off with Sam's meatsuit, and the showdown at Stull, but that was only because Dean showed up and inspired Cas and Bobby to show up (eventually) too. Barring that, with no little green army men to bolster him, we have to assume the events of The End would have ensued.

Well, yes, I'm not going to disagree. I've been arguing this, and that because of this, Dean did have a very important role to play in "Swan Song,"  for a long time now.

And that if this represents Sam's main and only win, even it has good sized flaws, so make of that what you will in terms of the writing...

[FlickChick]

21 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Sam's plan - as prone to failure as it was - posited trying to save everyone (because as Sam presented it, that was the plan, surprise Lucifer and immediately get him into the cage) so there you go. That meets the show's "criteria" of a moral / humane / whatever plan.

You do recall that when Sam said "yes", that he was aware that Lucifer already knew about the rings - they even had a discussion about it - and even after Dean said: "Sam, no!", he said yes to become Lucifer's vessel. So, their initial plan of "surprise" was long gone and Sam didn't care. He was determined to do exactly what he wanted to do - try to save the world on his own. Talk about hubris!!! But of course, with ol' Sera at the helm and gushing all over her fantasy boy, he's able to pull it off. And you wonder why so many think that this ending is a farce...

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, FlickChick said:

You do recall that when Sam said "yes", that he was aware that Lucifer already knew about the rings - they even had a discussion about it - and even after Dean said: "Sam, no!", he said yes to become Lucifer's vessel. So, their initial plan of "surprise" was long gone and Sam didn't care. He was determined to do exactly what he wanted to do - try to save the world on his own. Talk about hubris!!!

Yes, I do remember that, but that was not the original plan.

I also have suggested that this was the reason that there had to be an excuse in the plot for Sam to drink demon blood. The way that Jared played it - and he did it well as far as I'm concerned - having to drink that demon blood affected him. His entire demeanor changed as soon as he finished chugging.

The demon blood helped make him over confident, so he said "yes" anyway.

Quote

But of course, with ol' Sera at the helm and gushing all over her fantasy boy, he's able to pull it off. And you wonder why so many think that this ending is a farce...

Another way to look at it is that it was done so that Sam would not win right away, therefor making way for the contribution of Dean, Castiel, and Bobby. And Baby.

Sure Sera (although it was written by Kripke, so I'm not sure how much Sera really played into it, myself) had Sam pull it off, but not by himself. He pulled it off only because all of team free-will helped.

So some may call that ending a farce, but at least in that ending there was a positive role for everyone. Compare that to, say, season 9 where the role of secondary characters was allowed to outshine that of one or both of the main characters.

Whatever one thinks of "Swan Song," at least Dean was there at the big showdown. It can even be argued that he played a crucial role (I think he did, others disagree). In my opinion, that's much better than what happened to Sam in season 9's finale. Because I'm pretty sure spending the final showdown unconscious in the dirt is a fail on almost any level.

Sam's season 11 finale role isn't much better. Sam made a good cheerleader and then a good supportive nursemaid for Chuck. That's about it. Nonetheless, I loved season 11, so go figure... *shrug*

As for Sam pulling the "Swan Song" plan off (with help), in my opinion, that's more the show's philosophy again than Sera gushing all over Sam. For me, it seemed far-fetched that Dean pull off the "Jus in Bello" showdown against all of those demons, but he did it (with help)... Because this show liked that kind of message sometimes, especially in the Kripke years.

Others' miles will vary.

[Castiels Cat]

17 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Why are some saying that I'm making an excuse for Sam? I didn't condone what Sam considered doing. That was not what my point was even about at all. Though you aren't going to see me sugarcoating what Dean was considering doing either, my point was that the show / narrative / writers were never going to condone Dean sacrificing some people to save the rest.

As for Nancy, she consented to and wanted to be sacrificed to save the others. She told everyone to shut up so that she could make that opinion known. Just because she wasn't actually going to cut her own heart out doesn't mean she wasn't willing to have it done. That Sam considered going along with it for a moment showed how desperate and broken he was, but that doesn't negate that Nancy was offering the equivalent of throwing herself on a grenade - in other words: sacrificing herself - to save everyone else.

But that "prescribed and foretold role" includes potentially destroying half the people in the world and choosing that fate for them. Even if only a fraction of that were killed, that is still consenting to help kill a whole lot of people to save the rest.

I don't see how that is apples and oranges. It's more like comparing Granny Smith and MacIntosh apples. Entirely different flavors but still both apples. Still both considering condoning some people dying to save the rest. That is the equivalency.

You can try to dress it up by highlighting Dean's understandable despair and desire to do something, but that doesn't change the fact that part of his plan was to facilitate a whole bunch of people dying in the effort to save the rest.

It sounds more "noble" because there isn't a "black magic ritual," but there would still likely be a lot of dead people - men, women, and children - with an uncertain future for many of the people left behind afterwards, and it was something that Dean was deciding for everyone else. That was not a Dean in a good place.

It was saying yes to an angel to save potentially half of humanity. Both scenarios were going to result in people being killed to save the rest.

And it was Nancy herself who was giving Ruby the okay to use her to save the rest of the townspeolpe and any potential future victims of those demons, because the demons would've supposedly been vaporized.

As I said above, I understood it as well, but it didn't change the potential outcome. And Dean's lack of hope was a potential problem and was why the narrative was going to favor Sam's plan. It was crazy and likely not to work, but Sam had hope that it would. Sam wanted to try to save everyone that was left. Dean was willing to doom as much as half the planet to save the rest, because he didn't have that hope, so he was willing to go for the "sure thing" (which in my opinion wasn't all that much different than the "sure thing" of sacrificing a willing Nancy.) That lack of hope likely would've made him more susceptible to Michael's will as well. Dean wasn't talking about fighting Michael or talking him out of it. If he had, that would've made it different for me, but he wasn't, so it didn't.

The narrative was never going to condone sacrificing half the planet to save the rest, no matter how desperate Dean was or how crazy Sam's plan was in comparison. The writers had already established that that wasn't a thing that should be condoned. That has been my point all along.

You cannot compare the situations... AT... ALL.

One is talking a human life to perform a black magic ritual because the outcome happens to suit your current purposes.

The other is to succumb to the pull of great supernatural forces that have been conspiring to push you to step up and say yes to possession in this moment and allow them to use tour body in their cosmic game.

No comparison.

If you are trying to talk about saving lives there is still no comparison. They do not kill human beings for spell components and Dean rightfully refused to do see in 15:2 for another demonic magic spell despite the stakes being much higher.

Sam thinking it was a good idea to use Ruby's spell was a clear sign to her and the audience that she she was up to know good, John was right to be worried and something was very wrong with Sam. Dean was obviously very worried by Sam's patented shoulder shrug signaling that a VIRGIN sacrifice sounded good to him.

Yeesh.

 

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

You cannot compare the situations... AT... ALL.

One is talking a human life to perform a black magic ritual because the outcome happens to suit your current purposes.

The other is to succumb to the pull of great supernatural forces that have been conspiring to push you to step up and say yes to possession in this moment and allow them to use tour body in their cosmic game.

No comparison.

Yes, I can compare them, and I did.

It may be your opinion that the situations aren't comparable, but I see two situations where it's being proposed that people are going to be sacrificed, knowingly, to save others and where the person considering the sacrifice has something to gain. To me that's comparable.

I'm not saying one situation is better or worse than the other here. That's another question altogether and likely takes more philosophy than I'm willing to consider on a Tuesday night, but for now I tend to say both were questionable considerations in different ways.

I was going to say more, but I've covered it all already, and I shouldn't have to anyway. I think I've made a pretty good case. You can disagree, but it's not like I'm saying red is blue here.

I have my opinion, and you have yours, so I'll just agree to disagree.

Edited January 22, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[Bergamot]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

The submarine is probably going to fill with water before it can reach the surface. Do you A) send someone down there who can fix the problem, but you know is gonna drown doing it to save everybody else or B) not sacrifice that person and everybody might potentially drown in the most likely very slim chance you have to reach the surface first?

I don't know, I don't think this theoretical situation is comparable. The example only works for this discussion, in my opinion, if the person who is telling you to send someone down to fix the problem even though they will drown, is actually lying to you and manipulating you and trying to push you toward the darkside, so that they can get you to release Lucifer. Who will then proceed to destroy everyone on earth, including the rest of the people in the submarine. In other words, to ignore what Ruby was really up to, is a distortion of the story the show was actually telling.

 

10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

The narrative even had a sum up at the end of the episode where Sam and Dean talked about how Dean almost stepped over that line, but he didn't. It wasn't the exact same line Sam considered stepping over in "JiB," but it was a very similar one. And for me, "Point of No Return" did address that in several places throughout the episode.

I think that the show was pretty clear that the line that Sam considered stepping over in "Jus in Bello"  was the line between good and evil.  In "Point of No Return", there is never any indication that anyone thinks Dean is about to go darkside. They think Dean is making a mistake. They tell him not to commit suicide, not to sacrifice himself. They accuse him of giving up, of failing, of losing faith in his family. But at no point does anyone accuse him of becoming evil or inhuman or being okay with human sacrifice. (Or being "Machievellian". I'm sorry, but I can't think of anyone less likely to be viewed as Machievellian than Dean, even if he were going evil. He's no good at being subtle and devious.)

Dean is not choosing to sacrifice anyone, because he believes that everyone is about to die. He thinks the Titanic is about to sink. He thinks that he should help as many as possible get into the lifeboats, while from his point of view Bobby and Sam are objecting to lowering the lifeboats, and trying to prevent him from getting people on them, simply because they would rather pretend that are still going to keep the Titanic from going down.

Dean is not portrayed by the show during this time as someone who is willing to break a few eggs to make his omelet, and so is losing his humanity. I think this again would be a distortion of the story that the show is telling. What happens with Dean is that, as the result of the accumulation of all his experiences since he returned from Hell, he loses his faith in his family, specifically in Sam.  Although he later regains it, this loss of faith is what the narrative frames as his mistake, and the sin he must repent of.

53 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I have my opinion, and you have yours, so I'll just agree to disagree.

Sorry, I did not notice this until after I posted. Agree to disagree!

Edited January 22, 2020 by Bergamot