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

[ILoveReading]

I see Sam is back to his double standards.

So its okay with Sam if Rowena runs doing whatever because he identifies with her.  And if he goes bad he'll stop her.  He expects Dean to just accept this.

But Dean asks for that with Benny and Sam is like, dump him or I'll dump you.

Edited February 2, 2018 by ILoveReading

[DittyDotDot]

11 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

This for me is another example of a double standard (not directed at you DittyDottDott, just in general).  Dean clearly wasn't ready to deal with Jack yet he was excepted to put aside his issues for the sake of going along to get along. 

Why is is okay for Sam to hold onto his issues and pain and anger no matter the situation but Dean is expected to either suck it up, bury it, or or just get over it.

Well, personally, I don't see the double standard myself. I think it was perfectly fine that Dean felt the way he did about Jack and I think it was perfectly fine that Sam felt the way he did about Jack. It just happens that their feelings conflicted for a while there. And, I think that's okay. 

[ILoveReading]

9 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, personally, I don't see the double standard myself. I think it was perfectly fine that Dean felt the way he did about Jack and I think it was perfectly fine that Sam felt the way he did about Jack. It just happens that their feelings conflicted for a while there. And, I think that's okay. 

It's okay for them to have different feelings but I was referring to things that were happening on screen.  On screen the narrative said it wasn't okay for Dean to have conflicted feelings about Jack.  He was automatically expected to see Jack as a nougat loving cinnamon roll because Sam asked him too.

But he refused to give Dean the benefit of the doubt about Benny. 

So for Sam it is a double standard.

[Katy M]

Just now, ILoveReading said:

On screen the narrative said it wasn't okay for Dean to have conflicted feelings about Jack.  He was automatically expected to see Jack as a nougat loving cinnamon roll because Sam asked him too.

I did't see where that was said onscreen at all.  I saw that Sam was frustrated at Dean for not, but that's not the same thing as it being shown that Dean was wrong.

[DittyDotDot]

5 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

It's okay for them to have different feelings but I was referring to things that were happening on screen.  On screen the narrative said it wasn't okay for Dean to have conflicted feelings about Jack.  He was automatically expected to see Jack as a nougat loving cinnamon roll because Sam asked him too.

I happen to disagree that there was anything on screen that said it wasn't okay for Dean to have conflicted feelings about Jack--in fact, I think the narrative very clearly stated that Dean was just as right to be wary of Jack as Sam was to accept him. And, IMO, just because Sam would like Dean to accept Jack doesn't mean Dean doesn't have a right to feel differently and nothing that was shown on screen suggested otherwise, IMO. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by DittyDotDot

[ILoveReading]

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I happen to disagree that there was anything on screen that said it wasn't okay for Dean to have conflicted feelings about Jack--in fact, I think the narrative very clearly stated that Dean was just as right to be wary of Jack as Sam was to accept him. And, IMO, just because Sam would like Dean to accept Jack doesn't mean Dean doesn't have a right to feel differently and nothing that was shown on screen suggested otherwise, IMO. 

 

For me it was there. At the start of episode 3 when Dean wanted to go hunt and Sam told him no because he had to stay and help Jack.  And again at the the end of ep3 when Dean told Sam he couldn't be around Jack and Sam's response was to shove Jack at him even harder.  Then there was that whole scene at the "therapists" (and I use that term losely). where she victim shamed Dean. 

So IMO, the show was telling us exactly that. 

Quote

I saw that Sam was frustrated at Dean for not, but that's not the same thing as it being shown that Dean was wrong.

IMO, it is, because if was supposed to be okay for Dean not to be okay with Jack why wasn't Sam more understanding of Dean's feelings.  He wanted Dean to act a certain way towards Jack and woudn;t accept anything less.

Edited February 2, 2018 by ILoveReading

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

For me it was there. At the start of episode 3 when Dean wanted to go hunt and Sam told him no because he had to stay and help Jack.  And again at the the end of ep3 when Dean told Sam he couldn't be around Jack and Sam's response was to shove Jack at him even harder.  Then there was that whole scene at the "therapists" (and I use that term losely). where she victim shamed Dean. 

So IMO, the show was telling us exactly that. 

Sure, if you only look at it from Dean's side. But, Dean also thought Sam was wrong and took every opportunity to try and force Sam to his position. So, if I wanted, I could make the same exact argument that the narrative was saying Sam was being expected to ignore his own feelings and buck up to get along too.  I don't think that's at all what the narrative was actually saying, though, so I wouldn't make that argument. I think the narrative was saying they both were messed up and both were not handling things well, which caused them to be in conflict over Jack. And, I didn't see the narrative say either were not entitled to their perspective feelings even if their perspective characters may have thought that.

[ILoveReading]

6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Sure, if you only look at it from Dean's side. But, Dean also thought Sam was wrong and took every opportunity to try and force Sam to his position. So, if I wanted, I could make the same exact argument that the narrative was saying Sam was being expected to ignore his own feelings and buck up to get along too.  I don't think that's at all what the narrative was actually saying, though, so I wouldn't make that argument. I think the narrative was saying they both were messed up and both were not handling things well, which caused them to be in conflict over Jack. And, I didn't see the narrative say either were not entitled to their perspective feelings even if their perspective characters may have thought that.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.  Dean stated his opinion and then quickly accepted Sam decision to bring Jack to the bunker (if for his own reasons).  it wasn't like Dean was actively trying to kill Jack other than that first reaction.  He was trying to avoid him.  (by wanting to leave the bunker, not hunt with Jack, etc).  But it was Sam that kept forcing the issue.  Which is why Dean exploded at the end of ep 3.

With Dean being victims shamed in episode 4, and the writers actually having Sam say that if Jack went bad it was dean's fault being the biggest thing for me about what the authorial intent was. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Whimsy]

OFFICIAL MOD NOTE

 

As a reminder, this is not a debate thread.  It is perfectly acceptable to disagree, but once your opinion is stated move on.  You do not need to continuously harp on it and argue with other posters who do not agree.  Some posts have been removed.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

With Dean being victims shamed in episode 4, and the writers actually having Sam say that if Jack went bad it was dean's fault being the biggest thing for me about what the authorial intent was. 

I agree. The therapist was a writerly mouthpiece and she was saying Dean was wrong and was a jerk. And at the end of the episode he apologized for exactly that because he had learned his lesson. 

The show is usually in no way subtle about which brother the audience is supposed to see as right in any given argument. I mean, all throughout the Mary thing Dean was supposed to be wrong over being angry or feeling resentful or being too clingy or whatever feeling he had. That`s why he had to apologize for just wanting a perfect mommy cooking for him and kissing his booboos and not respecting her autonomy while Mary looked on smugly. The writing couldn`t be less unsubtle and manipulative. 

Most of the time I just happen to wildly disagree with the outlook of the writers on which character I`m supposed to think is perfectly in the right and entitled to whatever. Especially if they play that character like an ass but then never once call them on it. Or if they do, reverse it soon after so it was really like they were never called out in the first place.

Dean can be a jerk, he can be rude and he most certainly isn`t big on polite pretenses or something like that. But he is called out on it all the time, when he is in the wrong AND when he has a valid point on his side. I do not see the same happening with any other character when they act like jerks. There is most often validation for it in the "resolution" episode of the conflict. It is this validation that makes me so resentful, not when someone acted like a jerk because, that`s no big deal really. But call them out on it and have that stick, no take-backs.   

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

But he is called out on it all the time, when he is in the wrong AND when he has a valid point on his side. I do not see the same happening with any other character when they act like jerks. There is most often validation for it in the "resolution" episode of the conflict. It is this validation that makes me so resentful, not when someone acted like a jerk because, that`s no big deal really. But call them out on it and have that stick, no take-backs.  

In my opinion, this is often opinion, however. For me, I happen to see Dean's jerky or questionable behavior not really called out sometimes, just like everyone else's. The show is just good at presenting it as something else. A good example: my oft sited season 9. In my opinion, I have almost no problem with Dean helping Gadreel take over Sam. It was a bit rash and dangerous, yeah, but that's about it. My problem with the entire scenario was Dean's lying, repeatedly, even when Sam was in obvious distress. I don't buy the premise that Dean had no way to tell Sam. Dean is smart. He could've found a way using their secret code words, leaving clues Sam would figure out... any number of ways. So for me, Dean letting Sam think he was crazy and allowing Gadreel to continue using Sam and wiping his memories was jerky and wrong. But Dean isn't called out for that in the resolution.  It's deflected to the "you let Gadreel take me over" - which, for me: not the problem. And "I wouldn't have done it to you!" which a lie, and the writers knew it would be a lie, in my opinion, and the showed it was a lie (and so tehrefor invalid and easily dismissed, in my opinion.) So once Gadreel turned into a "real friend" and Sam lied... Dean's crappy behavior there in my opinion was swept right under the rug. Where was the conversation calling Dean out for lying to Sam all that time while Gadreel robbed his memories and violated his mind?

Dean thought he did the right thing by letting Gadreel in to save Sam, and so had  no apologies to give for that? Fine. I agree. Saving Sam was the right thing. No apology needed. Lying to Sam all that time afterwards? Not cool, and even if Dean had thought it necessary... he should have apologized for causing Sam that pain and violation in my opinion. Apparently the show excused that jerky behavior through the dialogue between Castiel and Sam where Sam had to admit that he didn't think that Gadreel felt evil or like he wanted to hurt Sam. Really? Bullcrap, and so insulting, in my opinion. How many angels did Gadreel murder? Dozens? Even if he thought it would reeem him somehow, he had to know murdering all of those angels was wrong. I don't buy that Gadreel was that gullible. And Gadreel threatened to kill Sam often to manipulate Dean... that's not meaning no harm.

Also the rash behavior of Dean doing it in the first place? Also not really called out - beyond Kevin being killed... which even he got a fairly happy resolution - and Gadreel is good so no problem with making that rash decision. Again no call out or consequences on that. The only thing the show did call Dean out on - the actual act to begin with - I didn't even think should have been called out as that bad, and then the show took that back anyway when Sam did the exact same thing.

And I'm pretty sure that's not the only example. (I think an argument can be made for killing Death at least). So no, I disagree. Dean's jerky behavior is just as justified by the show as other characters when the show wants to do so. It may be more subtle... but in my opinion, that's almost worse, because it is endorsing that behavior and reinforcing it even through re-representing details we saw - like how Gadreel supposedly didn't mean harm - to fit the agenda.

[ILoveReading]

6 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Not cool, and even if Dean had thought it necessary... he should have apologized for causing Sam that pain and violation in my opinion.

He did.  At the end of Sharp teeth. 

Quote

 

DEAN [pauses, nods]

Fair enough.

I was messed up, man. Kevin was dead, and I...I don't know what I was.

 

SAM

Okay.

 

DEAN

Hell, maybe I still don't. But, uh... I know I took a piece of you in the process, and for that...[DEAN struggles to say the right thing. He finally just vents] Somebody changed the playbook, man, you know? It's like what -- what -- what's right is wrong and what's wrong is more wrong, and... I just know that when... When we rode together... [He pauses, looking for the right words.]

 

Maybe it wasn't the best of apologies, but Dean does acknowledge he knows his actions affected Sam. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by ILoveReading

[AwesomO4000]

But for me, that could be an apology for letting Gadreel in to begin with - which as I said, I didn't really have a problem with beyond it being somewhat reckless.

Just as Sam's "I lied" is pointed to as vague*** this for me was way too vague. Dean could still have argued that he thought saving Sam through Gadreel was the right thing to do, but apologized specifically for the lying... However, in my opinion, the show sometimes tacitly endorses Dean's lying to Sam for Sam's own good (supposedly). And this was an example of that. Sam wasn't allowed to bring up the lying in this argument - which he should have - because then the show would have to address it as potentially wrong, and I think the show sympathized more with Dean on that point and didn't want Dean to have to apologize for it. Just my opinion, but for me it was too huge an issue to have just not been brought up by Sam. Especially since being lied to had been a huge issue for Sam in the past... see Amy, not telling him about John's last words, and I'm sure others. It seemed ridiculous that somehow that big thing wasn't even brought up, but instead all of these other obvious not truths either we knew were not true ("as long as it doesn't hurt you"), or could be later proved as not true "I lied."

For me that was all shiny object distraction to hide the fact that this huge issue that is usually a trigger for Sam's anger was being entirely ignored, so it could be tacitly (by omission) excused. I will understand if otehrs don't agree, but for me I noticed it mostly because it all went back to Sam's character being changed in seasons 8 and 9 to fit the plot / agenda. For me it was baffling that the writers would set up all of this Sam mental anguish foreplay due to Dean's lying - complete with multiple scenes of Dean arguing with Gadreel over it -  but then here's the climax and not a word about it. To me that was just bizarre unless there was an underlying reason for it - like more sympathizing with Dean's fretting over the lying and what a difficult decision he made, poor Dean, having to make that tough choice, than actually sympathizing with the one being lied to: Sam.

Just my view on it. Your miles most likely vary.

*** I think it was just concerning Sam saying that he wouldn't do the same thing to Dean, which ironically goes towards semi-validating the Gadreel possession when Sam does actually do the same thing... and which I didn't need anyway, since I agreed with Dean on that one, but that was the only thing Dean was really called out for. They couldn't let Sam have a valid point on this issue now could they or they couldn't justify Dean's actual jerky behavior later? (Still bitter about the writers hobbling Sam on that point).

[ILoveReading]

22 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But for me, that could be an apology for letting Gadreel in to begin with - which as I said, I didn't really have a problem with beyond it being somewhat reckless.

I guess I don't see how it can be an apology for letting Gadeel in because Dean will never be sorry for saving Sam's life.   But I do think he's sorry that Sam ended up getting hurt by Gadreel, and that is what Dean meant by acknowledging that Gadreel took a piece of him.

But MMV

[Wayward Son]

10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I guess I don't see how it can be an apology for letting Gadeel in because Dean will never be sorry for saving Sam's life.   But I do think he's sorry that Sam ended up getting hurt by Gadreel, and that is what Dean meant by acknowledging that Gadreel took a piece of him.

But MMV

You mean Dean will never apologise for being a controlling piece of crap who has no respect for Sam’s self-autonomy and therefore feels being an active participant in a gross Supernatural violation is OK. 

[ILoveReading]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

You mean Dean will never apologise for being a controlling piece of crap who has no respect for Sam’s self-autonomy and therefore feels being an active participant in a gross Supernatural violation is OK. 

Sam did the exact same thing the following year for the exact same reason.  If Dean is controlling doesn't that make Sam controlling too?  And also a hypocrite since he participated in the exact behavior he called Dean out on?

Dean did apologize that Sam got hurt by Gadreel.

Edited February 2, 2018 by ILoveReading

[gonzosgirrl]

6 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

And Sam too is a great fighter! I’m not saying it would be impossible for Dean to win in a fight against Sam, but IMO such a win would take place after a proper fight where both held their own not one punch. I would feel the exact same about Sam taking Dean out with a single punch.

Yeah precedent that took place before Sam went to hell and was tortured in the cage, was tortured to a lesser extent against Lady Bevell, learnt to hold his own against Demons, Angels and an assortment of other creatures. That’s a real revelant comparison. 

Except for when Sam was hopped up on demon blood, Dean has pretty much always prevailed in their physical confrontations. Having overpowered him, Dean was in the process of choking Sam out when Rowena zapped them apart and destroyed the hex bag. (Look at Sam's face - he was ready to pass out) That's real relevant. Dean has knocked him out before. So I have no problem believing he could and did do it again.

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam did the exact same thing the following year for the exact same reason.  If Dean contolling doesn't that make Sam controlling too?  And also a hpyocrite since he participated in the exact behavior he called Dean out on?

IMO a key difference between the two is the level of Supernatural influence on the brother in question. Sam was dying and in a position within his sub-conscious to make the decision to allow or disallow possession without outside influence. On the other hand, Dean was under the influence of the MoC and his behaviour had been influenced by it more than once. How much was Dean and how much was the mark is more questionable. I see the MOC as closer to Dean restoring Sam’s soul than the possession drama. I don’t blame Dean for restoring Sam’s soul as Sam wasn’t fully Sam  and therefore not in a position to make a choice. 

[gonzosgirrl]

11 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

You mean Dean will never apologise for being a controlling piece of crap who has no respect for Sam’s self-autonomy and therefore feels being an active participant in a gross Supernatural violation is OK. 

Yup. Exactly what Sam did just a little while later. Twice in fact, if you include both forcing the demon cure on him, and then removing the Mark from his arm.

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

IMO a key difference between the two is the level of Supernatural influence on the brother in question. Sam was dying and in a position within his sub-conscious to make the decision to allow or disallow possession without outside influence. On the other hand, Dean was under the influence of the MoC and his behaviour had been influenced by it more than once. How much was Dean and how much was the mark is more questionable. I see the MOC as closer to Dean restoring Sam’s soul than the possession drama. I don’t blame Dean for restoring Sam’s soul as Sam wasn’t fully Sam  and therefore not in a position to make a choice. 

First of all, I'm going to say that Sam should not have messed around with the Book of the Damned.  I've said that a million times and I'm not saying any different now.  However, I do think that there is another difference between the two situations.  Dean wanted the Mark off.  He had said so.  He just didn't want the Book used.  But, Dean didn't own the Book and the Book wasn't physically part of him. So, Dean didn't have the same right to control who used the Book, as Sam would have as to who controlled his mind/body.

[gonzosgirrl]

7 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

IMO a key difference between the two is the level of Supernatural influence on the brother in question. Sam was dying and in a position within his sub-conscious to make the decision to allow or disallow possession without outside influence. On the other hand, Dean was under the influence of the MoC and his behaviour had been influenced by it more than once. How much was Dean and how much was the mark is more questionable. I see the MOC as closer to Dean restoring Sam’s soul than the possession drama. I don’t blame Dean for restoring Sam’s soul as Sam wasn’t fully Sam  and therefore not in a position to make a choice. 

The last thing a conscious Sam did was choose to live*. The reason Sam was doing the trials was because he told Dean that he not only wanted to live, but that he wanted to show Dean the way. Even in his comatose state, when Gadreel-as-Dean was offering him the means to live (granted without knowing what those means were), Sam CHOSE to live. So yeah, Dean was dead wrong to lie about it afterward, but he was not wrong for taking Sam at his word about wanting to live. He just wasn't.

 

*ETA: I sincerely do not give a f**k if Dean 'talked him into it'. Sam chose it, period.

Edited February 2, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Yup. Exactly what Sam did just a little while later. Twice in fact, if you include both forcing the demon cure on him, and then removing the Mark from his arm.

I don’t see the demon cure as comparable. Demon Dean was not Dean, not fully, in the same way Sam was not fully Sam when Dean restores his soul. Neither were in a position to make a fully informed decision without outside influence in those circumstances. This was not the case here. Sam was dying, but he was still Sam and in a position to consent or not consent to possession. Dean chose to ignore this and lied to Sam with deliberate vagueness as he felt Sam would never consent to possession. Dean could have shared the full truth with Sam he chose not to because he decided his needs came above Sam’s self-autonomy. 

[gonzosgirrl]

3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I don’t see the demon cure as comparable. Demon Dean was not Dean, not fully, in the same way Sam was not fully Sam when Dean restores his soul. Neither were in a position to make a fully informed decision without outside influence in those circumstances. This was not the case here. Sam was dying, but he was still Sam and in a position to consent or not consent to possession. Dean chose to ignore this and lied to Sam with deliberate vagueness as he felt Sam would never consent to possession. Dean could have shared the full truth with Sam he chose not to because he decided his needs came above Sam’s self-autonomy. 

And unconscious Sam was not Sam.

It wasn't Dean 'lying' to coma-Sam, it was Gadreel. Dean's mistake* was in not telling Sam immediately after he was conscious, how it happened. THEN if Sam chose to eject Gadreel and die, that would've been his choice, and I'm betting Dean would've abided by it. I'm also 99.9% sure Sam would've chosen to live.

And I have never claimed he was anything but wrong here, even though I do believe there were mitigating circumstances. He was wrong.

Edited February 2, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Wayward Son]

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

The last thing a conscious Sam did was choose to live. The reason Sam was doing the trials was because he told Dean that he not only wanted to live, but that he wanted to show Dean the way. Even in his comatose state, when Gadreel-as-Dean was giving him the means to live (granted without knowing what those means were), Sam CHOSE to live. So yeah, Dean was dead wrong to lie about it afterward, but he was not wrong for taking Sam at his word about wanting to live. He just wasn't.

In your opinion he wasn’t. In my opinion he was extremely wrong to deliberately provide Sam with nothing but the most vague of promises as he felt Sam would never consent to the method in question. This was then compounded by months and months of lying and gaslighting of Sam. 

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

n the other hand, Dean was under the influence of the MoC and his behaviour had been influenced by it more than once. How much was Dean and how much was the mark is more questionable. I see the MOC as closer to Dean restoring Sam’s soul than the possession drama. I don’t blame Dean for restoring Sam’s soul as Sam wasn’t fully Sam  and therefore not in a position to make a choice. 

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

Id say Demon dean was more the equivalent of Dean restoring Sam's soul. 

If it was prior to episode 12.12, i might agree but after episode 10.13, he seemed to be able to find a key living with it.   Dean says his peace is helping people.

We saw Dean, not kill the college kids in episode 17, he tried to save Cole in episode 15, and he didn't have a kill in episode 16.  He didn't let Gadreel bait him into killing him in 18.  He also stopped himself from killing Cas.

Since Dean had to kill to sait the mark, hunting gave him the perfect way to do that.  Sam on the other hand allowed an innocent life to be sacrificed in the process.  Also in the process he was flat out told that removing the mark would put the world at risk.  Sam didn't care. 

So Dean was perfectly capable of making the decision because from the looks of it innocents were more in danger from Sam then Dean.  Also Sam and Cas's level of violence and aggression matched Deans.

He lost control after Charlie's death which wouldn't have happened if Sam backed off when Dean told him too.  Just because Sam said Dean had given up didn't mean he did.  It was a case of actions speaking louder than words.

In any case, Sam physically did something Dean told him not too.  Dean ignored Dean's wishs.  Even if Dean wasn't in a position to make a choice it still makes Sam a hypocrite since he didn't do it for Dean.  He did it so he wouldnt' be alone. 

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And unconscious Sam was not Sam.

Yes he was. He was unconscious and within his own mindscape and that is it. There is no evidence Sam was being externally influenced or that his thought processes and reactions in his mindscape would be any different to his thought processes and reactions in the waking world. 

[catrox14]

24 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

You mean Dean will never apologise for being a controlling piece of crap who has no respect for Sam’s self-autonomy and therefore feels being an active participant in a gross Supernatural violation is OK. 

Because it saved Sam's life. He didn't do for it shits and giggles here. He did it in a terrible moment of weakness. He should have let Sam die. That's the only other answer. So the apology had to do with Dean lying.

[gonzosgirrl]

3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Yes he was. He was unconscious and within his own mindscape and that is it. There is no evidence Sam was being externally influenced or that his thought processes and reactions in his mindscape would be any different to his thought processes and reactions in the waking world. 

So you think Bobby was really there? And Dean? In the car, outside the cabin, etc. You don't think that was Sam debating with his own subconcious? It wasn't until Gadreel let Dean in that he had ANY knowledge of what Sam was thinking, and when he did, SAM chose to live. Just like he did in the church. This is what Dean knew to be true.

Edited February 2, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Wayward Son]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Because it saved Sam's life. He didn't do for it shits and giggles here. He did it in a terrible moment of weakness. He should have let Sam die. That's the only other answer. So the apology had to do with Dean lying.

What Dean should have done was laid out the facts for Sam in clear and unambiguous language. “Sammy you’re dying and the doctors say your running out of time. I’ve managed to make a deal with an angel where he’ll possess you until your better. This will also heal him too as he needs to recover from the fall”. There you go Dean has told Sam everything. If Sam agreed great Gadreel possesses him and any consequences are on Sam for agreeing to it. If Sam says no then yes he should let Sam die as it is up to Sam whether he’d want to risk letting Gadeel gain control. If Dean had no way of talking to Sam within his mindscape then his decision to make a decision on Sam’s part  would be acceptable, but he did have that opportunity and chose to actively manipulate Sam with vaguary and half truths. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Wayward Son

[ILoveReading]

22 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, Dean didn't own the Book and the Book wasn't physically part of him. So, Dean didn't have the same right to control who used the Book, as Sam would have as to who controlled his mind/body.

If this is Sam's attitude it makes him no better then Dean.  Dean wanted the mark off but if its his body and he should have had full rights to say when and how. 

The end result was still the same.  Sam took away his choice. 

17 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

his was then compounded by months and months of lying and gaslighting of Sam. 

Didn't Sam also do this.  He lied to Dean and went behind Dean's back.  

Just this last week we saw Sam still doing things behind Dean's back.  So he apparently isn't sorry or he wouln't still be doing this.

Quote

actively manipulate Sam with vaguary and half truths. 

Something Sam did to Dean just last season .  When he lied and made Dean work cases for the BMOL, with vaguary and half truths.  Despite Dean being made to learn a very special lesson about respecting Mary choices, Sam very clearly indicated he didn't give a damn how Dean felt.  He was going to make it happen.

Edited February 2, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Myrelle]

19 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

You mean Dean will never apologise for being a controlling piece of crap who has no respect for Sam’s self-autonomy and therefore feels being an active participant in a gross Supernatural violation is OK. 

Yup. Just like Sam will never apologize for being a controlling piece of crap either. That they are controlling in different ways, doesn't make one better than the other. not in my book, anyway. And it's not like either one of them would do things differently again if the same situations arose(and even if the exact situations were reversed). So what is the point in either of them apologizing, if neither would change anything? Like it or not, I think that's where they're at now.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

In your opinion he wasn’t. In my opinion he was extremely wrong to deliberately provide Sam with nothing but the most vague of promises as he felt Sam would never consent to the method in question. This was then compounded by months and months of lying and gaslighting of Sam. 

 

Either Sam had the agency to agree to go with Death and say no to Gadreel!Dean or he didn't. It can't be agency for one deal and not the other.

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

What Dean should have done was laid out the facts for Sam in clear and unambiguous language. “Sammy you’re dying and the doctors say your running out of time. I’ve managed to make a deal with an angel where he’ll possess you until your better. This will also heal him too as he needs to recover from the fall”. There you go Dean has told Sam everything. If Sam agreed great Gadreel possesses him and any consequences are on Sam for agreeing to it. If Sam says no then yes he should let Sam die as it is up to Sam whether he’d want to risk letting Gadeel gain control. If Dean had no way of talking to Sam within his mindscape then his decision to make a decision on Sam’s part  would be acceptable, but he did have that opportunity and chose to actively manipulate Sam with vaguary and half truths. 

Sure under different circumstances, with a different angel who didn't have his own motivations, like say Castiel. And there wasn't a horde of angels trying to kill Dean at the hospital whilst waiting for Castiel to show up and Sam falling closer to death, Dean could have had time to do all that. But he didn't. He panicked. Made a shit decision to save his brother's life by any means necessary and here we are.

[Wayward Son]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 

Either Sam had the agency to agree to go with Death and say no to Gadreel!Dean or he didn't. It can't be agency for one deal and not the other.

I’ve always said Sam has had agency and that is why I have such an issue with Dean’s decision. My point is Dean didn’t fully inform him of the situation so Sam could not have known what he was consenting to. If Dean had laid out all the facts, as I gave an example of in a post above, then any subsequent consequences would fall on Sam for consenting. 

[catrox14]

Maybe that's the big disconnect here. If you think all of that was real; that Sam had actual capacity to make an informed decision about his life when he was in a coma and couldn't talk to anyone real, then I guess I can see why you see it that way.

I think all evidence points to none of that being real. Everything was in Sam's head. Death didn't come from the either into Sam's brain. Bobby didn't come from heaven into Sam's brain. Dean didn't punch out Sam. There was one entity that attached himself to Sam's brain and that was the angel, Gadreel. He showed Dean what was in Sam's messed up scrambled brain and what Dean saw was Sam giving up the fight.

The only entity that could have communicated that to Sam was Gadreel and he didn't do that. He did what expedited his desire to hide from the angels who wanted to kill him by getting into Sam.

 

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I’ve always said Sam has had agency and that is why I have such an issue with Dean’s decision. My point is Dean didn’t fully inform him of the situation so Sam could not have known what he was consenting to. If Dean had laid out all the facts, as I gave an example of in a post above, then any subsequent consequences would fall on Sam o

[Myrelle]

8 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

What Dean should have done was laid out the facts for Sam in clear and unambiguous language. “Sammy you’re dying and the doctors say your running out of time. I’ve managed to make a deal with an angel where he’ll possess you until your better. This will also heal him too as he needs to recover from the fall”. There you go Dean has told Sam everything. If Sam agreed great Gadreel possesses him and any consequences are on Sam for agreeing to it. If Sam says no then yes he should let Sam die as it is up to Sam whether he’d want to risk letting Gadeel gain control. If Dean had no way of talking to Sam within his mindscape then his decision to make a decision on Sam’s part  would be acceptable, but he did have that opportunity and chose to actively manipulate Sam with vaguary and half truths. 

 

23 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

The last thing a conscious Sam did was choose to live*. The reason Sam was doing the trials was because he told Dean that he not only wanted to live, but that he wanted to show Dean the way. Even in his comatose state, when Gadreel-as-Dean was offering him the means to live (granted without knowing what those means were), Sam CHOSE to live. So yeah, Dean was dead wrong to lie about it afterward, but he was not wrong for taking Sam at his word about wanting to live. He just wasn't.

 

*ETA: I sincerely do not give a f**k if Dean 'talked him into it'. Sam chose it, period.

 

15 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

So you think Bobby was really there? And Dean? In the car, outside the cabin, etc. You don't think that was Sam debating with his own subconcious? It wasn't until Gadreel let Dean in that he had ANY knowledge of what Sam was thinking, and when he did, SAM chose to live. Just like he did in the church. This is what Dean knew to be true.

Dean chose to believe that Sam was in his right mind when he made the decision to live in the church, so to Dean, Sam was not in his right mind when Gadreel gave him that glimpse of Sam going with Death. He knew that Sam wouldn't like or want to be possessed, but he banked on Sam understanding afterwards, when he WAS in his right mind(again, Dean think here) as to why he'd allow Gadreel in to make the attempt to convince Sam to say yes; and yes, even if it involved some subterfuge on Gadreel's part. Sam still had to say yes, though. If he really wanted to die, nothing would have convinced him to live-not even Dean-so even if Sam did have agency as to whether he wanted to live or not and Dean was wrong about thinking that Sam wasn't himself. Still Sam chose to live.

[Katy M]

25 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

If this is Sam's attitude it makes him no better then Dean.  Dean wanted the mark off but if its his body and he should have had full rights to say when and how. 

The end result was still the same.  Sam took away his choice. 

Dean was never mad that Sam got the mark off his arm.  He was only mad about the sneaking around and using a dangerous book.  And rightly so.  But, while Sam was wrong wrong wrong to be messing around with the book, he was wrong because he was endangering the world, not because he was messing with Dean's body.  Dean wanted the mark off.

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Katy M said:

Dean was never mad that Sam got the mark off his arm.  He was only mad about the sneaking around and using a dangerous book.  And rightly so.  But, while Sam was wrong wrong wrong to be messing around with the book, he was wrong because he was endangering the world, not because he was messing with Dean's body.  Dean wanted the mark off.

Then by this logic Dean had the right to mess with Sam body because as far as he knew Sam wanted to live and Dean was talking steps to make that happen.

They're either both guilty of taking away the others choice regardless of circumstance.  But IMO, Sam is guilty of being a hypocrite about it.  He can't get mad at Dean when he continues to do the exact same thing for the exact same reason.

[Wayward Son]

18 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Maybe that's the big disconnect here. If you think all of that was real; that Sam had actual capacity to make an informed decision about his life when he was in a coma and couldn't talk to anyone real, then I guess I can see why you see it that way.

I think all evidence points to none of that being real. Everything was in Sam's head. Death didn't come from the either into Sam's brain. Bobby didn't come from heaven into Sam's brain. Dean didn't punch out Sam. There was one entity that attached himself to Sam's brain and that was the angel, Gadreel. He showed Dean what was in Sam's messed up scrambled brain and what Dean saw was Sam giving up the fight.

The only entity that could have communicated that to Sam was Gadreel and he didn't do that. He did what expedited his desire to hide from the angels who wanted to kill him by getting into Sam.

 

I think most things weren’t real. I think the surroundings, Bobby, the Dean who appeared prior to Gadreel were all manifestations of Sam’s sub-conscious. The only things I believe to be real are Death, who was there in the capacity of reaper, and later Gadreel who was acting as Dean’s mouthpiece in the final scene before Sam woke up.  It is during this final scene Sam could have been provided with all the facts and allowed Sam to make an informed decision. 

 

Personally, I think the disconnect comes from the mind I see the whole thing as more nuanced than the rest of you seem to. The impression I’m getting, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you and other commenters seem to think Sam agreeing he wants to live is a catch all consent that covers everything. While IMO there is a difference between wanting to live in general terms, which could be carried out by a number of means making a deal, angelic healing, possession etc, and consenting specifically to having your body possessed for a prolonged period of time in order to live. Sam agreed he wanted to live BUT he never agreed to possession and Dean certainly seems to believe he wouldn’t have agreed had that little detail been added. 

 

Dean too knew such a distinction exists and commented on the fact Sam would never say yes to possession and that is why the question posed to Sam was vague and proper detail wasn’t provided.  

 

@catrox14

Edit: The closest analogy I can think of is this. When Castiel slept with the angel possessing April a number of fans saw it as non con for BOTH Castiel and April. They argued it was such for two reasons 1) April never consented just the angel possessing her and 2) Castiel consented to sleeping with April. He did not consent to sleeping with the reaper possessing her and presumably would not have had he known the truth. So Castiel’s “consent” was not viewed as actual consent as he did not know all the facts about who he was sleeping with. Likewise, I don’t see Sam’s consent as fully informed consent as he didn’t know about the extreme violation involved in the method Dean had chosen to use to save him. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Wayward Son

[DeeDee79]

57 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Yup. Just like Sam will never apologize for being a controlling piece of crap either. That they are controlling in different ways, doesn't make one better than the other. not in my book, anyway. And it's not like either one of them would do things differently again if the same situations arose(and even if the exact situations were reversed). So what is the point in either of them apologizing, if neither would change anything? Like it or not, I think that's where they're at now.

Co-sign 100%.

[Myrelle]

8 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Personally, I think the disconnect comes from the mind I see the whole thing as more nuanced than the rest of you seem to. The impression I’m getting, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you and other commenters seem to think Sam agreeing he wants to live is a catch all consent that covers everything. While IMO there is a difference between wanting to live in general terms, which could be carried out by a number of means making a deal, angelic healing, possession etc, and consenting specifically to having your body possessed for a prolonged period of time in order to live. Sam agreed he wanted to live BUT he never agreed to possession and Dean certainly seems to believe he wouldn’t have agreed had that little detail been added.

And Sam never asked any questions about how "Dean" was going to save him. He just went along with it, which makes me feel as if he wanted that lifeline more than he wanted to die and he didn't even really want to know how Dean had accomplished it.

Afterwards, is a different story and lying/hiding things has always been depicted as "wrong" between the brothers and bad things have always resulted from it no matter which one was doing the lying/hiding, but that has never stopped either one of them from continuing to do it to this day-even still to each other and over both big things and small things and this has been true from the beginning of the series; so IMO, by that point, this should not have come as any great surprise to Sam-not where Dean keeping him alive is concerned, anyway. So apologies from either of them for that, are simply ridiculous at this point too, IMO, precisely because neither one is likely to change.

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

I guess I don't see how it can be an apology for letting Gadeel in because Dean will never be sorry for saving Sam's life.   But I do think he's sorry that Sam ended up getting hurt by Gadreel, and that is what Dean meant by acknowledging that Gadreel took a piece of him.

But MMV

26 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Because it saved Sam's life. He didn't do for it shits and giggles here. He did it in a terrible moment of weakness. He should have let Sam die. That's the only other answer. So the apology had to do with Dean lying.

Yes, Dean was sorry that his lying resulted in Sam getting hurt and gave a half-assed apology for that - but not for lying in the first place... For me there is a difference.

Sorry that I'm going to clarify a little here but please bear with me: As I said before, until the Carver era maybe, lying was a big thing to Sam. Thinking on it some more, I've changed my mind some on "The Mentalists" - no, really it does happen, I swear! - not about Dean having won the argument, or that Sam was remiss in not bringing up the time span, but maybe on why Sam didn't argue back on the time span. I think it goes along with his characterization that Sam was so relieved to hear Dean say that he would've told him the truth eventually, that that is why he forgave Dean and didn't look any closer. At the end of the episode, Sam's even persistent in making sure... Sam picks at Dean just a little, getting Dean to admit that the reason why he was losing sleep and feeling crappy was because he didn't like lying to Sam. That's what Sam wanted to hear. Sam understands that feeling all too well. There were no real consequences for Sam from Dean lying - Sam just didn't like that Dean had lied when Sam had put his trust in Dean as his "stone number one."

So in the Gadreel case, would Dean have been sorry about lying if Gadreel had just gone his merry way and Sam had never found out? Probably a little. Would he have told Sam? I don't know, probably not. And for me that still would have been wrong. I repeat that in my case, I do not have the same problem as some have with Dean letting in Gadreel in the first place. My problem is that once Sam was stable, Dean should have immediately told Sam - whether there were bad effects or not. Dean can be sorry all he wants that bad things happened. And maybe his somewhat apology is fine for that, though it should have been a little better, but it doesn't excuse the original lie in the first place or that Dean was willing to let it lie as long as he got what he wanted: a healed Sam... But even putting that aside, fine - Dean didn't apologize and I get it it helped to save Sam.

My problem was that the show ignored it. No only did the writers ignore it by not having Sam bring it up during "The Purge" argument,*** they ignored it by not having any real consequences for it happening beyond Kevin... and they didn't point out that Kevin didn't die because Dean let Gadreel in. Kevin died because Dean lied about it. But nope it was framed that it happened because Dean was selfish and wanted to save Sam - which as I said was undermined by Sam doing the same thing. And why does this bug me so much? Because as I said, the show during this time wasn't consistent on this point. When Sam went to save Dean, the fact that Sam lied while doing it was harped on endlessly: Castiel pointed it out, Bobby pointed it out, Charlie pointed it out, Rowena pointed it out, hell I think even Metatron pointed it out through Castiel. I get it show: Sam lying to Dean is bad. And so then Sam causing an apocalypse by doing it was just icing on the unequal treatment consequences cake. So why when Sam lies to Dean it's this huge thing everyone points at and there are still huge, awful consequences, but when Dean lies to Sam, it's barely even acknowledged as wrong at all? As far as I recall not one person - except for Sam one brief time - even brought up that Dean had been lying to Sam all that time and the consequences it caused. Sam gets an apocalypse for lying. Dean gets "real friend" Gadreel and a semi-ally in defeating Metatron.

To me that's not right of the show to do, and it didn't used to be that way... Tying it all back to "The Mentalists." That's how it should be. Lying is wrong when either brother does it, not just one, with it being pointed out only for one and with consequences only for one.

*** And this is the reason I say that Sam was not in character here, not because he was "mean to Dean" and that's not in character, but what he was angry with Dean about was out of character. Sam all too well understands wanting to save your brother and that Dean is going to take care of him... he even appreciated that in the past - see "Season 7, Time for a Wedding." After season 4, when Sam learned that he's not so great at not being the little brother, Sam made peace with that side of Dean and even appreciated it and said so repeatedly. It was Carver, in my opinion, who changed that and took that away from Sam and made this about "you took away my agency!" when it should have been about what Sam was previously always angry about before: when Dean lies to him.

2 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Afterwards, is a different story and lying/hiding things has always been depicted as "wrong" between the brothers and bad things have always resulted from it no matter which one was doing the lying/hiding,

As I outlined above, I completely disagree. This is the way it used to be, but with the whole Gadreel situation, Dean's lying was barely a blip on the radar, in my opinion. It was made out to be all about Dean's original decision which in the end, was pretty much excused when Sam said "I lied" and did the same thing. And for me it pretty much started in earnest in season 8 in terms of consequences: Sam's sneaking behind Dean's back in reference to Benny for example had much larger consequences in my opinion than Dean's decision to lie to Sam about Benny in the first place... which Dean's lying in the end was sort of justified by the narrative based on what happened. They could have Charlie lip service it all they wanted "ooh Dean sending the text was bad..." Yeah, no. I go by consequences, and those were all bad only on Sam's side of the deceit. Sorry show - I see what you're doing, especially after the Gadreel incident confirms it for me. Dean lies to Sam - he has a good reason to, because see he was right / mostly good came from it* / nothing earth shattering happened. Sam lies to Dean - people get killed and apocalypses get started.

* Interesting that both subjects of Dean's lies turned out to either be good, crucial to saving Sam, crucial to saving the world, or sometimes more than one of those.

[Wayward Son]

6 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

8 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Interesting that both subjects of Dean's lies turned out to either be good, crucial to saving Sam, crucial to saving the world, or sometimes more than one of those.

 

Did you not get the memo? Every other character has to be sacrificed at the alter of Dean “Gary Stu” Winchester’s all knowing judgement and righteousness. That is why when he takes an instant disliking to Ruby, for nothing more than the fact she’s a demon, or disapproves of Castiel’s plan to defeat Raphael, their only plan to defeat him, she turns out to be evil and Cas unleashes the biggest of the bad. While when Sam takes a dislike to Dean’s dubious Supernatural ally he turns out to be a cuddly bear vampire and mean old Sam was just being a jealous specieist. It’s the number one rule on this show everyone else has to be sacrificed to maintain Dean’s utterly flawless judgment. 

[catrox14]

7 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Did you not get the memo? Every other character has to be sacrificed at the alter of Dean “Gary Stu” Winchester’s all knowing judgement and righteousness. That is why when he takes an instant disliking to Ruby, for nothing more than the fact she’s a demon, or disapproves of Castiel’s plan to defeat Raphael, their only plan to defeat him, she turns out to be evil and Cas unleashes the biggest of the bad. While when Sam takes a dislike to Dean’s dubious Supernatural ally he turns out to be a cuddly bear vampire and mean old Sam was just being a jealous specieist. It’s the number one rule on this show everyone else has to be sacrificed to maintain Dean’s utterly flawless judgment. 

I mean putting aside the snark here. If Dean has such flawless judgment why don't people around him listen to him before they go off the deep end and he has to save them?  

It's a puzzlement for sure. 

[Wayward Son]

Just now, catrox14 said:

I mean putting aside the snark here. If Dean has such flawless judgment why don't people around him listen to him before they go off the deep end and he has to save them?  

It's a puzzlement for sure. 

Because they can hardly highlight Dean’s all knowing judgement if they don’t show us the others going against him leading to terrible consequences ;)  

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Because they can hardly highlight Dean’s all knowing judgement if they don’t show us the others going against him leading to terrible consequences ;)  

 

I will say if Dean had this all knowing judgment, he would have known to not sell his soul for Sam's since he would have known that it meant he would start the Apocalypse. Unless you mean that he knew that would happen so he did it anyway. Or that he would take on the Mark of Cain, knowing he would end up a demon and that Sam would release the Darkness as a result. That sounds more like God than a Gary Stu?

Wait are you saying Dean IS God?  Hmmmm he does look like one that's for sure. 

[Lemuria]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Kevin died because Dean lied about it.

No, Kevin died because Metatron wanted Kevin dead, something neither Dean nor Sam knew.  Since we saw that Kevin actually went off on his own to get away--such as his trip to Branson--he was going to end up dead no matter what.  

[Wayward Son]

7 minutes ago, Lemuria said:

No, Kevin died because Metatron wanted Kevin dead, something neither Dean nor Sam knew.  Since we saw that Kevin actually went off on his own to get away--such as his trip to Branson--he was going to end up dead no matter what.  

I would actually agree with this! 

However, it should be noted that the guilt Sam has/had about his hands being used to kill him... that’s all on Dean. 

24 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 

I will say if Dean had this all knowing judgment, he would have known to not sell his soul for Sam's since he would have known that it meant he would start the Apocalypse. Unless you mean that he knew that would happen so he did it anyway. Or that he would take on the Mark of Cain, knowing he would end up a demon and that Sam would release the Darkness as a result. That sounds more like God than a Gary Stu?

Wait are you saying Dean IS God?  Hmmmm he does look like one that's for sure. 

But even then the narrative finds a way to shift the blame on to Sam. After season 4 Dean’s part in unleashing the apocalypse is forgotten and all the blame lies with Sam for killing Lilith. After s10 Dean and the mark are forgotten about and the blame for everything lies with Sam for removing the mark. Even Ghuck himself states that Dean as a demon would have left the world spinning, but Sam unleashing Amara nearly ruined that. So don’t worry if Gary Stu Dean is going to make a mistake the show will find a way to make the others do something worse to make him look better again. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Wayward Son

[Lemuria]

54 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

That is why when he takes an instant disliking to Ruby, for nothing more than the fact she’s a demon,

Seriously, in this universe, that's not enough?  I don't think that demons should get the benefit of the doubt; I think they should have to prove it first.  JMO.  YMMV.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I would actually agree with this! 

However, it should be noted that the guilt Sam has/had about his hands being used to kill him... that’s all on Dean. 

And it should be noted that Dean took the  blame for Kevin's death. He literally said it was on him. That's why he left to find a way to kill Gadreel and Metatron.  Dean literally called himself poison and he ended up with the Mark of Cain.

*Gadreel and Metatron

Edited February 2, 2018 by catrox14

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

That is why when he takes an instant disliking to Ruby, for nothing more than the fact she’s a demon

When this happened there was no such thing as a good demon, or even a beige one.  Sam and Dean at this point had even barely seen any good monsters.  Anyone would have  been suspicious.

Quote

that’s all on Dean. 

Dean took responsibility,  He even said he'd burn for it.  Dean also tried to give Kevin a really heart felt apology but Kevin told him to stop having a pity party.  So really why should Dean apologize if everyone is just going to act annoyed by it.

 

Quote

After season 4 Dean’s part in unleashing the apocalypse is forgotten and all the blame lies with Sam for killing Lilith.

Dean breaking the first seal that he didn't know existed under decades of torture doesn't compare to Sam being a dumbass who was lead around by his penis.

Quote

After s10 Dean and the mark are forgotten about and the blame for everything lies with Sam for removing the mark.

He's not wrong.  Death even told Sam the consequences he chose to go through it anyway.  Dean took equal responsibility. Who cares about Chuck.  He abandoned the entire human race.  He's not exactly in a position to lecture.

Edited February 2, 2018 by ILoveReading