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

[Res]

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

  1 hour ago, Reganne said:

I think if they wanted to show that Sam cut off Dean, they would have shown it.  Not beat around the bush and leave it up for interpretation.  Heck, Alex Irvine who wrote John Winchester's journal didn't read it the way you did either... so it's definitely not clear.  As he wrote from John's perspective about Sam in college:

"Now Dean tells me he's cut off contact with Sam, and it's killing me.  I can't stand the idea of the boys being separated." page 192

 

Now I know this isn't officially canon, but it does say something about different points of view and interpretation of the show.  

For those arguing that Dean saying, "If I call, would you have picked up?" as being unanswered and not definitive that Sam wouldn't have based on the way Dean asked the question, the exact same could be said about this non-canon (or secondary canon) quote. "Dean tells me he's cut off contact with Sam" could mean anything in that mindset from "Dean's got tired of trying to contact Sam and being ignored so he's not trying anymore" to "Dean has been talking to Sam and decided to not do it anymore because it upsets them both too much" to "Dean's tired of being the go-between/peacemaker/stuck in the middle" to "Sam told Dean to stop calling but Dean doesn't want to make things worse between his father and brother so Dean's taking the blame for the lack of communication". Plus, in addition to the Journal not being official canon, that's John's take of what Dean said and not verbatim which could be exact, summarized or John's interpretation of whatever Dean said without any context to the mental state of either of them at the time it was said or when it was written. So, yeah, it does say a lot about different POV and interpretation of the show.

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

Sam's thinking that John wouldn't want to talk to him or see him is a different story.  Sam specifically says he's not sure if their Dad is going to want to see him, but Dean?  I don't think that's what his perception of Dean at all.  

I just figure Sam thought if they wanted to be in contact with him they'd call, but he'd stick to John's threat of staying gone otherwise and not initiate any contact. And, IMO, John felt the same way so he wouldn't initiate contact either. Which left Dean stuck in the middle and, I think he was both hurt by Sam's departure while also trying not to directly go against John at the same time, so I don't think he contacted Sam before John went missing.

But, that's my interpretation of the whole thing and by no means canon, because there really isn't canon on this, if you ask me.

Edited July 29, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[CluelessDrifter]

8 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I just figure Sam thought if they wanted to be in contact with him they'd call, but he'd stick to John's threat of staying gone otherwise and not initiate any contact. And, IMO, John felt the same way so he wouldn't initiate contact either. Which left Dean stuck in the middle and, I think he was both hurt by Sam's departure while also trying not to directly go against John at the same time, so I don't think he contacted Sam before John went missing.

But, that's my interpretation of the whole thing and by no means canon, because there really isn't canon on this, if you ask me.

I just don't see the Dean we've been shown not trying to make contact even after what John said and in spite of Sam's departure.  I imagine a Dean that's quite like the Dean in Home or Just My Imagination going around the corner from where his Dad is and making the calls, leaving messages, and getting nothing back until finally he leaves a message that says that if Sam wants to talk to him, he knows how to get in touch, and leaves it at that . . . unless he's drunk dialing him after that point.

Edited July 29, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[Res]

4 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

But can you be traumatised by something you can't remember? If say Dean was being truthful, and from his perspective he went straight from dying straight to being alive again, could it be said he was traumatised by Hell? This was the way Sam saw things to begin with. 

 

However, you're right, Dean did soon begin to exhibit signs of trauma and when Sam picked up on these he asked about it. Dean chose not to talk about it! Since it has been said Dean has the right time to not discuss such a personal and traumatic experience I'm not sure what else Sam could have done.

Hell, yes, you can be traumatized by something you can't remember? You can have PTSD over childhood events that you don't remember but still effect/trigger you when a stranger gets to close physically, or certain words or phrases. Yes, I speak from experience. I still don't remember most of it but I now know some of what happened. 

 

Either way, the fact was that his brother who he went through the depths of despair missing, enough that his hooking up, in every sense of the word, with a demon over, just came back from the dead and this was his brother's first night back from Hell, where he's been for the last 4 months, but Sam couldn't stay one night with him? The first night his brother is back after being dead? If nothing else, he could've stayed and made sure that the demons didn't come after Dean for that one night, rather than go back and hunt them down.  He's lucky that they didn't take a different path and go after Dean but then Cas had already got them.

[Katy M]

5 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I just don't see the Dean we've been shown not trying to make contact even after what John said and in spite of Sam's departure.  I imagine a Dean that's quite like the Dean in Home or Just My Imagination going around the corner from where his Dad is and making the calls, leaving messages, and getting nothing back until finally he leaves a message that says that if Sam wants to talk to him, he knows how to get in touch, and leaves it at that . . . unless he's drunk dialing him after that point.

Dean's insecure and afraid of rejection on some level.  So, if he thought Sam was going to blow him off, he might have decided not to call and better to not know for sure.

Just now, Res said:

but Sam couldn't stay one night with him? The first night his brother is back after being dead? If nothing else, he could've stayed and made sure that the demons didn't come after Dean for that one night, rather than go back and hunt them down.  He's lucky that they didn't take a different path and go after Dean but then Cas had already got them.

He was probably only planning on being gone an hour or two.  If those demons had wanted to kill Dean, they would have done it when Sam and Dean were at the diner. 

[CluelessDrifter]

6 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Dean's insecure and afraid of rejection on some level.  So, if he thought Sam was going to blow him off, he might have decided not to call and better to not know for sure.

I'm sorry.  I understand that's the way you see Dean, and I agree there is an insecurity there, but I think we see Dean differently, because I don't believe for one second, he'd let his brother walk out the door without trying to call him and talk him around to coming back so they could work it out, and then calling after it was obvious Sam wouldn't come back just to leave him messages telling him to call him until it became obvious Sam wouldn't, and I can totally see Sam not answering, listening to the messages, and then deleting them.  Even after Mary walked out in season 12, Dean is the one who initiated and maintained contact with her, and he raised Sam.

Edited July 29, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[Reganne]

26 minutes ago, Res said:

For those arguing that Dean saying, "If I call, would you have picked up?" as being unanswered and not definitive that Sam wouldn't have based on the way Dean asked the question, the exact same could be said about this non-canon (or secondary canon) quote. "Dean tells me he's cut off contact with Sam" could mean anything in that mindset from "Dean's got tired of trying to contact Sam and being ignored so he's not trying anymore" to "Dean has been talking to Sam and decided to not do it anymore because it upsets them both too much" to "Dean's tired of being the go-between/peacemaker/stuck in the middle" to "Sam told Dean to stop calling but Dean doesn't want to make things worse between his father and brother so Dean's taking the blame for the lack of communication". Plus, in addition to the Journal not being official canon, that's John's take of what Dean said and not verbatim which could be exact, summarized or John's interpretation of whatever Dean said without any context to the mental state of either of them at the time it was said or when it was written. So, yeah, it does say a lot about different POV and interpretation of the show.

All as it said was that Dean said he cut off contact with Sam.  It is non canon, but I think that John's word are more clear than a rhetorical question.... At least with the way it's worded.  However, it would be second hand so it could be argued that Dean made it look like he was the one who cut Sam off if you really wanted to and he only said that to John.  So I can see what you mean there.  More interpretation.  

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, CluelessDrifter said:

and he raised Sam.

Dean is a mere 4 years older than Sam.  He didn't raise him.  He was left alone with him a lot.  But, John was there at least sometimes.  We know they had babysitters, along with Bobby.  Yes, Dean had way too much responsibility, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say that he single-handedly raised Sam.

And, you were the one who pointed out that Sam gave as good as he got in his fight with John.   And, we know that John can be a jerk. If Dean felt that contacting Sam may have cost him John, he may have gone with the family member he already knew he had, instead of possibly losing both.

[Reganne]

5 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I'm sorry.  I understand that's the way you see Dean, and I agree there is an insecurity there, but I think we see Dean differently, because I don't believe for one second, he'd let his brother walk out the door without trying to call him and talk him around to coming back so they could work it out, and then calling after it was obvious Sam wouldn't come back just to leave him messages telling him to call him until it became obvious Sam wouldn't, and I can totally see Sam not answering, listening to the messages, and then deleting them.  12 years of character building tell me that Dean wouldn't have let him just go without trying to contact him.  Even after Mary walked out in season 12, Dean is the one who initiated and maintained contact with her, and he raised Sam.

Dean was ready to let Sam go and stop hunting in season 5.  Even after Sam begged him to let him come back, Dean said they were better apart.   The only reason he let Sam come back was because Zachariah showed him the future.  Most of this was because Dean was angry at Sam because of the whole Ruby thing.

 

Dean could have been angry at Sam for what he perceived as abandonment when he went to college.  There were times in the series when we are made aware that it upset Dean when Sam went to college.  Never was it stated that Sam wouldn't take calls from Dean.  And there was at least 2 years where there was no attempt to contact each other from either brother... so yes Dean wasn't contacting him either.  Maybe he didn't like how the initial conversation with Sam went and decided not to call again.  We don't know.

[DittyDotDot]

32 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I just don't see the Dean we've been shown not trying to make contact even after what John said and in spite of Sam's departure.  I imagine a Dean that's quite like the Dean in Home or Just My Imagination going around the corner from where his Dad is and making the calls, leaving messages, and getting nothing back until finally he leaves a message that says that if Sam wants to talk to him, he knows how to get in touch, and leaves it at that . . . unless he's drunk dialing him after that point.

That's a perfectly fine interpretation. I just see it differently.

I think it's totally in Dean's character to assume Sam didn't want anything to do with him either and maintain the status quo until he couldn't do it anymore. That doesn't mean Dean didn't want to hear from Sam or didn't have the impulse to call him--nor does it mean Sam wouldn't have welcomed a phone call or any contact from Dean--I just don't think neither acted on the impulse and both stubbornly maintained the radio silence, myself. I think it's like almost everything on this show, a two way street--well, in this case since John was involved I guess it was a three-way street...what would be a three-way street though? ;)

20 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I'm sorry.  I understand that's the way you see Dean, and I agree there is an insecurity there, but I think we see Dean differently, because I don't believe for one second, he'd let his brother walk out the door without trying to call him and talk him around to coming back so they could work it out

We might see Dean differently, or we might just be seeing Dean as a slightly less mature when he was 22 than he is now? I don't think Dean NOW would let Sam walk away like that without any contact, but a younger, more hot-headed Dean with John standing next to him stubbornly digging his heals in? I can totally see Dean holding out and not calling Sam. I image by the time John disappeared Dean had already been thinking about trying to contact Sam for a while--thinking this stupidity had gone on long enough--John going missing was just the opportunity he needed to break the ice with Sam.

Edited July 29, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Wayward Son]

In regards to Yellow Fever I've always had the head canon that it was foreshadowing the reveal Dean tortured souls in hell. While Dean simplified the ghosts MO down to he goes after "dicks" Sam revealed it actually goes after those who "used fear as a weapon". A description I'm certain would more than fit Dean's tenure as a master of torture in hell. 

 

I want to be clear that while I have issues with Dean's behaviour on the show his time in hell isnt one of them. I have a lot of sympathy for Dean and understood he only broke after severe physical and mental torture. However, I don't think a ghost would make such a distinction. They'd see it in black and white i.e. "he uses fear as a weapon, he deserves to die" and that's it. I'm thinking back to Bloody Mary where the ghosts MO was to kill someone who could be seen as responsible for the death of another. It didn't matter to her if they actually physically killed someone like Jill, or were bystanders who felt guilty for not doing more to stop it like Sam and Charlie.

 

4 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Yes.  Repressed memories.  Things that happened in childhood when you were too young to understand that affect your behavior for the rest of your life.  (Been there, done that!)  Witnessing or being a victim of traumatic events like rape, war, terrorist attacks or natural disasters,  even if you don't remember the actual event (people who survived a tsunami, eg, who can't remember the actual event but have unreasoning panic attacks when they go near water for years afterwards).  The mind tends to block out horrific memories but the body remembers (there's actually a book on dealing with trauma called that.)  

 

 

25 minutes ago, Res said:

Hell, yes, you can be traumatized by something you can't remember? You can have PTSD over childhood events that you don't remember but still effect/trigger you when a stranger gets to close physically, or certain words or phrases. Yes, I speak from experience. I still don't remember most of it but I now know some of what happened. 

Thank you both for the clarification! Psychology isn't an area I'd consider myself an expert on, so it is always good to have an opportunity to expand my knowledge :) 

[DittyDotDot]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

In regards to Yellow Fever I've always had the head canon that it was foreshadowing the reveal Dean tortured souls in hell. While Dean simplified the ghosts MO down to he goes after "dicks" Sam revealed it actually goes after those who "used fear as a weapon". A description I'm certain would more than fit Dean's tenure as a master of torture in hell. 

My issues with Yellow Fever isn't that Dean is supposed to be a dick--because, yes, it is foreshadowing, IMO--but that both Sam and Bobby actually are acting like dicks in that episode, but it's Dean, who is not acting like a dick, who gets infected. It just wasn't a very well thought out episode, IMO. It does have it's charms though along with it's logic fails. But so do most episodes, so whatcha gonna do?

[Wayward Son]

Taking my response to all episodes thread.

[DeeDee79]

16 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

In regards to Yellow Fever I've always had the head canon that it was foreshadowing the reveal Dean tortured souls in hell. While Dean simplified the ghosts MO down to he goes after "dicks" Sam revealed it actually goes after those who "used fear as a weapon". A description I'm certain would more than fit Dean's tenure as a master of torture in hell. 

 

I want to be clear that while I have issues with Dean's behaviour on the show his time in hell isnt one of them. I have a lot of sympathy for Dean and understood he only broke after severe physical and mental torture. However, I don't think a ghost would make such a distinction. They'd see it in black and white i.e. "he uses fear as a weapon, he deserves to die" and that's it. 

I agree with this. I was annoyed on first watch because of statement that jerks or bullies were the usual targets. After Dean's confession that he tortured souls upon rewatch of this episode I've always assumed that was why Dean was a victim of ghost sickness. I'm still annoyed by Sam and Bobby during the episode though.

Edited July 29, 2017 by DeeDee79

[Katy M]

18 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

but that both Sam and Bobby actually are acting like dicks in that episode

How was Bobby acting like a dick?  All he did was ask where Dean was, speak Japanese and suggest they scare the ghost to death.  I guess that would be being a dick to the ghost, but...?  Unless you mean at the end.  I think he was trying to joke Dean out of it, if you know what I mean. 

[CluelessDrifter]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

Dean is a mere 4 years older than Sam.  He didn't raise him.  He was left alone with him a lot.  But, John was there at least sometimes.  We know they had babysitters, along with Bobby.  Yes, Dean had way too much responsibility, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say that he single-handedly raised Sam.

And, you were the one who pointed out that Sam gave as good as he got in his fight with John.   And, we know that John can be a jerk. If Dean felt that contacting Sam may have cost him John, he may have gone with the family member he already knew he had, instead of possibly losing both.

I did point out that Sam gave as good as he got with John, and I don't see how that contradicts anything that I've already written.  I still think Dean would have tried to call him without John knowing, and I don't think he would've thought John would totally disown him if he did find out.  Dean knew John drove by Stanford to check on Sam. Dean knew John spoke proudly of Sam to victims, like Jerry in Phantom Traveller.  

And being responsible for your sibling for extended periods of time with no parental supervision, being responsible for the money and finding more when you run out during said periods of parental absence, making or buying your sibling meals, taking your sibling to school, making sure your sibling gets Christmases, and having to continue taking care of your sibling as well as your Dad when your Dad comes home and drinks the problems of the job away . . . I'd consider that raising him.  Babysitters don't cover it.  Neither does spending time at Bobby's or with Pastor Jim.  Dean was the one constant in Sam's life, and I think John's words in IMToD confirm what we've seen in all the flashbacks over the years: "You know, I put, I put too much on your shoulders, I made you grow up too fast. You took care of Sammy, you took care of me."

Edited July 30, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[DittyDotDot]

17 minutes ago, Katy M said:

How was Bobby acting like a dick?  All he did was ask where Dean was, speak Japanese and suggest they scare the ghost to death.  I guess that would be being a dick to the ghost, but...?  Unless you mean at the end.  I think he was trying to joke Dean out of it, if you know what I mean. 

I explained it in the All Episodes thread. I don't think Bobby was being a dick to Dean, but the definition of dick in that episode is someone using fear as a weapon. Road hauling the ghost in order to scare it to death--again--is kinda the definition of using fear as a weapon, so I shortcut it to being a dick.

[Katy M]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

I explained it in the All Episodes thread. I don't think Bobby was being a dick to Dean, but the definition of dick in that episode is someone using fear as a weapon. Road hauling the ghost in order to scare it to death--again--is kinda the definition of using fear as a weapon, so I shortcut it to being a dick.

OK, but the ghost couldn't very well infect Bobby while, or after, he was roadhauled.  Plus, Bobby didn't come into contact with anyone infected, or the ghost himself, so he had no way of getting infected.  Sam, is obviously another story on those counts.

[DittyDotDot]

8 minutes ago, Katy M said:

OK, but the ghost couldn't very well infect Bobby while, or after, he was roadhauled.  Plus, Bobby didn't come into contact with anyone infected, or the ghost himself, so he had no way of getting infected.  Sam, is obviously another story on those counts.

Yes, I know, I was just saying that, on it's own, it makes no sense why Dean was the one who gets infected here. To me, this "infection" seemed more random than specific where Dean was concerned. I decided it was one of those TV illnesses that can suddenly go airborne and infect anyone, after initially  being passed only by contact and only affecting certain people who carry a specific characteristic, when the body count and urgency needs to jump ten-fold for dramatic effect. ;)

Edited July 30, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[CluelessDrifter]

56 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Dean was ready to let Sam go and stop hunting in season 5.  Even after Sam begged him to let him come back, Dean said they were better apart.   The only reason he let Sam come back was because Zachariah showed him the future.  Most of this was because Dean was angry at Sam because of the whole Ruby thing.

 

Dean could have been angry at Sam for what he perceived as abandonment when he went to college.  There were times in the series when we are made aware that it upset Dean when Sam went to college.  Never was it stated that Sam wouldn't take calls from Dean.  And there was at least 2 years where there was no attempt to contact each other from either brother... so yes Dean wasn't contacting him either.  Maybe he didn't like how the initial conversation with Sam went and decided not to call again.  We don't know.

Dean was ready to let Sam go in season 5 after a year of Sam lying to him, going behind his back, and choosing a demon and his addiction over Dean.  After the War case, Sam said he didn't trust himself, because he was tempted by what he thought was demon blood and missed the feeling.  Dean had to step back.  For himself.  For the task at hand.  At a certain point, you have to choose, you or the person with an addiction, or you'll both go down.  Sam was still unsteady, pulled himself out of the equation, and Dean accepted that, because it was what was best for both of them.  Once you've dealt with an addict for an extended period of time, you don't trust them when they're using, or when they're sober at first.  You are always looking for signs they're using again, because they have every other time they've told you they're sober, and it isn't good for you or the addict.  It's not easy to walk away from an addict, but when you've exhausted every other option, it's the only thing you can do until you and the person are ready, and they may never be ready.  To me, that's a far cry from never talking to Sam again after a single fight where John told Sam if he walked out that door, not to come back, because Sam was going to college.  I still think Dean would have tried to make contact in that scenario, and I've already laid out my reasons why.

[Reganne]

10 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

  I still think Dean would have tried to make contact in that scenario, and I've already laid out my reasons why.

I know the reasons Dean was angry with Sam in season 5.  Doesn't really change the fact that he was willing to let Sam walk away.  

 

I simply don't believe that a guy who wants to so desperatly cut off his family would give in so easily and change his mind after a few moments with Dean.  Then so quickly open up the doors for communication after one weekend.  It doesn't make sense at all.  Not to mention he had a picture up of his mom and dad at his place.  If Sam truly wanted to cut his family out..... he wouldn't have that photo out and he wouldn't have gone with Dean for the weekend period.  Jessica even questioned Sam about going with Dean for the weekend so it wasn't a show for her.

[catrox14]

Even if every viewer that watches the show doesn't think Dean raised Sam, the show canonically stated in 12.22 that Dean was brother, father and mother to Sam. IMO that was the show  confirming what has been shown and implied directly and indirectly throughout 12 seasons.

[CluelessDrifter]

57 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I know the reasons Dean was angry with Sam in season 5.  Doesn't really change the fact that he was willing to let Sam walk away.  

 

I simply don't believe that a guy who wants to so desperatly cut off his family would give in so easily and change his mind after a few moments with Dean.  Then so quickly open up the doors for communication after one weekend.  It doesn't make sense at all.  Not to mention he had a picture up of his mom and dad at his place.  If Sam truly wanted to cut his family out..... he wouldn't have that photo out and he wouldn't have gone with Dean for the weekend period.  Jessica even questioned Sam about going with Dean for the weekend so it wasn't a show for her.

Except that the limits that were pushed in season 4 far exceeded anything we were told happened prior to the start of the show, a single argument with John, and the separation in season 5 was mutually beneficial, some might say a necessity, for both of them.  Not talking, while Sam was at college has always come across to me as Sam's choosing because of the way their reunion was written and acted.  I also think that it's in Sam to cut ties with Dean, especially, a young immature Sam.  You don't agree, and that's okay.  At this point, I think it's best if we agree to disagree on this particular subject, so we don't continue repeating ourselves and annoying everyone else.   

Edited July 30, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[RulerofallIsurvey]

14 hours ago, shang yiet said:

Sam's hell trauma is not a joke. Just because some fans feel the show put too much emphasis on it doesn't mean Sam's torture by Lucifer is not perfectly legitimate. It did cause him valid psychological issues, to say the least.

Here! Here!

10 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

 I find it interesting there was no talk of a "thumbs down" for posts from users who talk about Sam in equally unflattering terms. 

I've noticed something similar to this many times.  

10 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Offering an alternative point of view sometimes seems pointless when the other party has clear disdain for the character that is being discussed IMO.

Of course, that's why the moderators suggest ignoring the post and simply not responding.

9 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

And it wasn't just about Sam abandoning Dean to better himself at college.  

I simply do not understand how anyone - Supernatural fan or not - can contort a younger sibling going off to college to get an education into 'abandoning' an older, perfectly capable sibling.  Now, if it was the older sibling knowingly leaving a younger, more vulnerable sibling in a dangerous, abusive situation and not alerting the proper authorities about it before or after they left, then I could understand how that could be construed as 'abandonment.'  But not the way it happened on SPN.  Sheesh.

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

You don't agree, and that's okay.  At this point, I think it's best if we agree to disagree on this particular subject, so we don't continue repeating ourselves and annoying everyone else.   

We can agree to disagree.  We will never agree but I'm not debating because I want someone to agree with me.  I am sharing another perspective that differs from the narrative in some of these posts that portray Sam as an apathetic type of character.... or at least when it comes to his relationship with Dean.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Reganne

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Of course, that's why the moderators suggest ignoring the post and simply not responding.

I know. Which I often do because I can tell from the tone of the post if the person in question is open for an alternate viewpoint or so firmly ensconced in their opinion that to debate will equal banging my head against a brick wall.

[sugarbabex23]

12 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Here! Here!

I've noticed something similar to this many times.  

Of course, that's why the moderators suggest ignoring the post and simply not responding.

12 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Here! Here!

I've noticed something similar to this many times.  

Of course, that's why the moderators suggest ignoring the post and simply not responding.

I simply do not understand how anyone - Supernatural fan or not - can contort a younger sibling going off to college to get an education into 'abandoning' an older, perfectly capable sibling.  Now, if it was the older sibling knowingly leaving a younger, more vulnerable sibling in a dangerous, abusive situation and not alerting the proper authorities about it before or after they left, then I could understand how that could be construed as 'abandonment.'  But not the way it happened on SPN.  Sheesh.

Agreed completely.  The fact that people think a younger sibling leaving their family or older sibling behind and going off to make their own life constitutes as abandoning them is just beyond weird to me. Sam didn't abandon Dean. Dean was a grown man who was capable of making his own decisions. 

[CluelessDrifter]

27 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I simply do not understand how anyone - Supernatural fan or not - can contort a younger sibling going off to college to get an education into 'abandoning' an older, perfectly capable sibling.  Now, if it was the older sibling knowingly leaving a younger, more vulnerable sibling in a dangerous, abusive situation and not alerting the proper authorities about it before or after they left, then I could understand how that could be construed as 'abandonment.'  But not the way it happened on SPN.  Sheesh.

I'm just going to quote myself, so the full context of what is written is here, because I think to do otherwise misinterprets what I wrote and makes it seem as though I was saying that Sam abandoned Dean by going to college.  Perhaps I should have written it as 'abandoned', but I thought and still think my post was clear when taken in context.

10 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

And it wasn't just about Sam abandoning Dean to better himself at college.  Were it not for Jess's death, it would have been for life and without a second look back at Dean.  And I also don't think that it was Sam wanting to better his life that was the problem.  It was cutting Dean out that was the problem to Dean.  

Edited July 30, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I'm just going to quote myself, so the full context of what is written is here, because I think to do otherwise misinterprets what I wrote and makes it seem as though I was saying that Sam abandoned Dean by going to college.  Perhaps I should have written it as 'abandoned', but I thought and still think my post was clear when taken in context.

 

3 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

And it wasn't just about Sam abandoning Dean to better himself at college.  Were it not for Jess's death, it would have been for life and without a second look back at Dean.  And I also don't think that it was Sam wanting to better his life that was the problem.  It was cutting Dean out that was the problem to Dean.  

I agree & I don't think that it was the fact that Sam went to college; it was that he cut himself off from Dean. Further into the show Dean brags about Sam's smarts and the fact that he went to Stanford so I don't think that falls in line with someone who's resentful of the fact that their sibling went off to better themselves. I know now that someone is going to remark "but what about all of the times that Dean threw it back in Sam's face that he left them, left hunting, forgot about them, blah blah blah....." to which I say if you have siblings and they do anything that pisses you off or hurts your feelings ( I have 2 brothers so I know of what I speak ) you go for the jugular. It's not always logical or true, it just is what it is. That being said, I don't think that Dean resented Sam going to school.

[sugarbabex23]

I'm sorry but I find it so weird that Dean resented Sam for going to college. I find it weird that an older sibling would feel abandoned or resent their younger sibling for going out into the world and making a life for themselves. I'm just not used to that kind of thing. My older sister (I'm a middle child btw) never resented me for going off to university and making a life for myself. In fact, she was extremely happy and supportive and proud of me. The kind of behaviour that Dean exhibits towards Sam is just really strange and bizarre to me because I didn't grow up in those kinds of conditions and that kind of stifling environment. An older sibling(s) is supposed to support their younger sibling(s) when they leave to explore the world, follow their goals and dreams, and build a life for themselves, not get upset and angry and resent them for doing so.

Edited July 30, 2017 by sugarbabex23

[Reganne]

6 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

 

I agree & I don't think that it was the fact that Sam went to college; it was that he cut himself off from Dean. Further into the show Dean brags about Sam's smarts and the fact that he went to Stanford so I don't think that falls in line with someone who's resentful of the fact that their sibling went off to better themselves. I know now that someone is going to remark "but what about all of the times that Dean threw it back in Sam's face that he left them, left hunting, forgot about them, blah blah blah....." to which I say if you have siblings and they do anything that pisses you off or hurts your feelings ( I have 2 brothers so I know of what I speak ) you go for the jugular. It's not always logical or true, it just is what it is. That being said, I don't think that Dean resented Sam going to school.

If Sam truly cut off Dean from his life and that was what truly upset him in the situation, then why wouldn't he bring that up instead of the abandoning him for college argument?  Saying someone cut you out of their life is also going for the jugular and probably even more so.  It just doesn't make any sense.

[ahrtee]

54 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 

11 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

 I find it interesting there was no talk of a "thumbs down" for posts from users who talk about Sam in equally unflattering terms. 

I seem to have missed a few posts, because I don't remember seeing anything about specifying *which* posts get a thumbs down.  I thought if there was a "disagree" button, it applied to all  posts, not just those talking against Dean?  

The intent (at least my intent) was to avoid bitter "discussions" and just note that, "no, I disagree with this," not claiming "you're an idiot for saying this."  

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Reganne said:

If Sam truly cut off Dean from his life and that was what truly upset him in the situation, then why wouldn't he bring that up instead of the abandoning him for college argument?  Saying someone cut you out of their life is also going for the jugular and probably even more so.  It just doesn't make any sense.

And I said when you're feeling hurt or pissed by siblings you go for the jugular whether or not it's logical or true. What you're pointing out is what I stated. When speaking to Sam he may have made a comment about him abandoning the family for college ( which I said in my post ) but when speaking to others Dean seems to take pride in Sam's intelligence. This supports my belief that it wasn't resentment that he went to college, just that he cut off contact.

Edited July 30, 2017 by DeeDee79
spelling

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, sugarbabex23 said:

I'm sorry but I find it so weird that Dean resented Sam for going to college. I find it weird that an older sibling would feel abandoned or resent their younger sibling from going out into the world and making a life for themselves. I'm just not used to that kind of thing. My older sister (I'm a middle child btw) never resented me for going off to university and making a life for myself. In fact, she was extremely happy and supportive and proud of me. The kind of behaviour that Dean exhibits towards Sam is just really strange and bizarre to me because I didn't grow up in those kinds of conditions and that kind of stifling environment. An older sibling(s) is supposed to support their younger sibling(s) when they leave, not get upset and angry and resent them for doing so.

I have two older siblings. I went to college & later served in the military. Despite the two of them having previously served they expressed disbelief that I could do it & I resented them for their viewpoint which was based on the fact that I'm their baby sister. Were they being malicious? No but I resented them for their lack of support. I know that they were worried and I don't resent them now but it's logical to feel resentful towards a sibling or loved one based on a perceived slight. It doesn't mean that the environment is stifling because everyone doesn't have the same upbringing. But MMV.

[ahrtee]

51 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Of course, that's why the moderators suggest ignoring the post and simply not responding.

I know. Which I often do because I can tell from the tone of the post if the person in question is open for an alternate viewpoint or so firmly ensconced in their opinion that to debate will equal banging my head against a brick wall.

Simply ignoring something can be pretty frustrating when you disagree strongly, and especially when it starts to take over the thread.  After all, if you can "like" something to show that you agree without going into detail, why can't you just put a "thumbs down" to show that you disagree without having to explain your reasoning?  

Entering into a "discussion" after the first few posts when both sides express their differing opinions tends to become repetitive and way too bitter, when more and more people take sides.  This isn't a battle, and there are no winners or losers because, TBH, EVERY opinion voiced here is *just* an opinion, based on your own interpretation, whether it's filtered through your like (or dislike) of a character, or based on something in your personal life, and you can't say one is better than another.  That's why "agree to disagree" should be the end of the conversation.  It's not like someone is keeping track of how many people are on each side and the one with the more likes wins.  JMO.

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Simply ignoring something can be pretty frustrating when you disagree strongly, and especially when it starts to take over the thread.  After all, if you can "like" something to show that you agree without going into detail, why can't you just put a "thumbs down" to show that you disagree without having to explain your reasoning?  

Entering into a "discussion" after the first few posts when both sides express their differing opinions tends to become repetitive and way too bitter, when more and more people take sides.  This isn't a battle, and there are no winners or losers because, TBH, EVERY opinion voiced here is *just* an opinion, based on your own interpretation, whether it's filtered through your like (or dislike) of a character, or based on something in your personal life, and you can't say one is better than another.  That's why "agree to disagree" should be the end of the conversation.  It's not like someone is keeping track of how many people are on each side and the one with the more likes wins.  JMO.

I actually agreed with you earlier that there should be a dislike button. It gets frustrating when you try to offer an unbiased point of view when someone clearly hates the character that you're defending and spewing so much vitriol that it becomes clear that there's no point in responding. Sometimes stating agree to disagree doesn't take because I've seen posts that still continue on to press their point instead of amicably letting it go. And I know the mods state that we just shouldn't engage but it's still irritating.

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

I actually agreed with you earlier that there should be a dislike button. It gets frustrating when you try to offer an unbiased point of view when someone clearly hates the character that you're defending and spewing so much vitriol that it becomes clear that there's no point in responding. Sometimes stating agree to disagree doesn't take because I've seen posts that still continue on to press their point instead of amicably letting it go. And I know the mods state that we just shouldn't engage but it's still irritating.

Even if they don't hate the character or are spewing vitriol but are just trying to prove their point over and over again (whether it's to make you see the light and agree with them or just because they think you're missing the point) it's still hard to ignore.  That's one reason why I tend to stay away from this thread whenever possible.  

[Reganne]

9 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

And I said when you're feeling hurt or pissed by siblings you go for the jugular whether or not it's logical or true. What you're pointing out is what I stated. When speaking to Sam he may have made a comment about him abandoning the family for college ( which I said in my post ) but when speaking to others Dean seems to take pride in Sam's intelligence. This supports my believe that it wasn't resentment that he went to college, just that he cut off contact.

But why wouldn't you say to your sibling what the actual problem is when going for the juggler?   Especially when the problems arose from a similar Era.   Sorry but most us do have siblings as well.  Your explanation still doesn't make sense to me.  

 

And yeah Dean has shown pride towards Sam going to college but this was after the fact when Sam was no longer in college.  At the time he said this, Sam was hunting along side him like he wanted.

[sugarbabex23]

2 minutes ago, Reganne said:

But why wouldn't you say to your sibling what the actual problem is when going for the juggler?   Especially when the problems arose from a similar Era.   Sorry but most us do have siblings as well.  Your explanation still doesn't make sense to me.  

 

And yeah Dean has shown pride towards Sam going to college but this was after the fact when Sam was no longer in college.  At the time he said this, Sam was hunting along side him like he wanted.

Exactly. So Dean praising Sam's intelligence doesn't mean squat because Dean got what he wanted which was Sam hunting with him. The only way that Dean's approval and praise of Sam going to college or his intelligence would have counted for something was when Sam was away at college and not hunting alongside Dean. So Dean's praising of Sam rings hollow to me. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by sugarbabex23

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Reganne said:

But why wouldn't you say to your sibling what the actual problem is when going for the juggler?   Especially when the problems arose from a similar Era.   Sorry but most us do have siblings as well.  Your explanation still doesn't make sense to me.  

 

And yeah Dean has shown pride towards Sam going to college but this was after the fact when Sam was no longer in college.  At the time he said this, Sam was hunting along side him like he wanted.

 I don't know how to make it make sense to you because my opinion is based on my interpretation which differs from yours. And of course I know that I'm not unique in having siblings nor do I think that I'm the only one that does which is why I was stating my own experiences. Everyone doesn't operate the same which is why we have differing interpretations as to what is being depicted on screen. Sam & Dean have wavered between combative & passive aggressive. They don't always lay out in clear unwavering terms what their problem is with the other which is why fandom debates as to what the true intention may have been during a scene/discussion. You don't have to agree with me; I'm just offering my opinion for whatever it's worth.

Edited July 30, 2017 by DeeDee79
spelling again..why am I still awake???

[sugarbabex23]

I honestly don't think Dean even sees Sam as an equal. I think he sees him as a child that shouldn't make decisions without his approval first. And I think this was very apparent when it came to the college situation. It just doesn't make any sense to me though. Sam was 18 years old when he left for college. Which means that Sam was an adult and was legally able to make his own decisions. Neither Dean or John were responsible for Sam anymore. The fact that both John and Dean resented Sam for going out into the world and making a life to better himself (something that is considered to be very normal in everyday families) is just very abnormal and bizarre. I simply don't approve of the way they (Dean and John) handled the Sam going to college situation at all. Did they not realize that Sam was not a child/baby anymore and that he was a capable adult at the age of 18 who had the right to choose what he wanted to do with his life without any judgement? I don't know, but Dean and John really bothered me in regards to the way that they treated Sam about going to college. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by sugarbabex23

[CluelessDrifter]

1 hour ago, sugarbabex23 said:

I'm sorry but I find it so weird that Dean resented Sam for going to college. I find it weird that an older sibling would feel abandoned or resent their younger sibling from going out into the world and making a life for themselves. I'm just not used to that kind of thing. My older sister (I'm a middle child btw) never resented me for going off to university and making a life for myself. In fact, she was extremely happy and supportive and proud of me. The kind of behaviour that Dean exhibits towards Sam is just really strange and bizarre to me because I didn't grow up in those kinds of conditions and that kind of stifling environment. An older sibling(s) is supposed to support their younger sibling(s) when they leave, not get upset and angry and resent them for doing so.

I would counter by saying that the abandonment Dean feels comes from the way in which it was done with Sam cutting off contact with Dean.  If you still talked to your sister, while you were in college, it's not quite the same thing.  

 

As for resentment, I think in Skin the shifter said that Dean was jealous that Sam got to go pursue his dreams and had friends, while Dean couldn't, because he had a responsibility to his Dad and hunting, but that's the only instance where I can think that resentment was brought up on Dean's side.  It wasn't said by Dean, even though we can surmise it's something he feels, but he hasn't said it out loud, and as @DeeDee79 said, Dean has also verbally praised Sam for being smart and going to college.  I think how it would compare in a real life setting is if an older sibling had always given everything they had to a family and had to continue to bare the brunt of those responsibilities alone, while watching their younger sibling go off to college.  Maybe the older sibling was intelligent and would've had things he or she wanted to do, but let's say for the sake of argument, that they had to care for a a parent that has an illness of some kind and was likely to die without that support.  Sure, the older sibling can leave and do whatever they want, but that responsibility to their parent and maybe supporting them with a job is what they and the family have come to rely on the older sibling to do, and the older sibling knows his or her role and accepts it, but if the older sibling then watches their younger sibling go off to college, I think in that instance that it would be as common as not for the older sibling to feel resentment alongside varying levels of pride or happiness for their younger sibling.  

Edited July 30, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, sugarbabex23 said:

I honestly don't think Dean even sees Sam as an equal. I think he sees him as a child that shouldn't make decisions without his approval first. And I think this was very apparent when it came to the college situation. It just doesn't make any sense to me though. Sam was 18 years old when he left for college. Which means that Sam was an adult and was legally able to make his own decisions. Neither Dean or John were responsible for Sam anymore. The fact that both John and Dean resented Sam for going out into the world and making a life to better himself is just very abnormal and bizarre. I simply don't approve of the way they handled the Sam going to college situation at all. Did they not realize that Sam was not a child/baby anymore and that he was a capable adult at the age of 18? I don't know, but Dean and John really bothered me in regards to the way they treated Sam about going to college. 

We can agree to disagree because if this is your viewpoint I can't see any point in further debating.

[CluelessDrifter]

2 minutes ago, sugarbabex23 said:

I honestly don't think Dean even sees Sam as an equal. I think he sees him as a child that shouldn't make decisions without his approval first. And I think this was very apparent when it came to the college situation. It just doesn't make any sense to me though. Sam was 18 years old when he left for college. Which means that Sam was an adult and was legally able to make his own decisions. Neither Dean or John were responsible for Sam anymore. The fact that both John and Dean resented Sam for going out into the world and making a life to better himself is just very abnormal and bizarre. I simply don't approve of the way they handled the Sam going to college situation at all. Did they not realize that Sam was not a child/baby anymore and that he was a capable adult at the age of 18? I don't know, but Dean and John really bothered me in regards to the way they treated Sam about going to college. 

This was John's perspective in Dead Man's Blood:

"You gotta understand something. After your mother passed all I saw was evil, everywhere. And all I cared about was keeping you boys alive. I wanted you...prepared. Ready. Except somewhere along the line I ... uh ... I stopped being your father and I ... I became your, your drill sergeant. So when you said that you wanted to go away to school, all I could think about, my only thought was, that you were gonna be alone. Vulnerable. Sammy, it just... it never occurred to me what you wanted."

And we knew he was concerned enough to check up on Sam and also knew that Azazel had plans for Sam, so I can see why he wasn't thrilled with the idea of Sam leaving, getting complacent, being alone, and staying in one place where he would have been easier for Azazel to track down (not that Azazel seemed particularly happy about it either, or Jess wouldn't have died).  Should John have told Sam he didn't want Sam to go, because it scared him?  Yes.  Should he have handled it in the exact wrong way and kicked Sam out for it?  No.  Should he have told Sam about Azazel's plans?  I'm not sure.  Probably, but I don't know how Sam would have reacted, and we wouldn't have had season 2, which is tied as my favorite season, if John had told them all of that before he died. 
 

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

This was John's perspective in Dead Man's Blood:

"You gotta understand something. After your mother passed all I saw was evil, everywhere. And all I cared about was keeping you boys alive. I wanted you...prepared. Ready. Except somewhere along the line I ... uh ... I stopped being your father and I ... I became your, your drill sergeant. So when you said that you wanted to go away to school, all I could think about, my only thought was, that you were gonna be alone. Vulnerable. Sammy, it just... it never occurred to me what you wanted."

And we knew he was concerned enough to check up on Sam and also knew that Azazel had plans for Sam, so I can see why he wasn't thrilled with the idea of Sam leaving, getting complacent, being alone, and staying in one place where he would have been easier for Azazel to track down (not that Azazel seemed particularly happy about it either, or Jess wouldn't have died).  Should John have told Sam he didn't want Sam to go, because it scared him?  Yes.  Should he have handled it in the exact wrong way and kicked Sam out for it?  No.  Should he have told Sam about Azazel's plans?  I'm not sure.  Probably, but I don't know how Sam would have reacted, and we wouldn't have had season 2, which is tied as my favorite season, if John had told them all of that before he died. 
 

Exactly. We've been told & shown later that John's reaction was due to his fear of Sam not being safe when he was out of his sight. Furthermore we've been shown that Dean has pride in his brother despite all of the differences and passive aggressive exchanges we've been shown. As I've said when dealing with family we're not always kind which can be said when we're dealing with anyone if we're pissed/hurt enough.

[sugarbabex23]

31 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I would counter by saying that the abandonment Dean feels comes from the way in which it was done with Sam cutting off contact with Dean.  If you still talked to your sister, while you were in college, it's not quite the same thing.  

 

As for resentment, I think in Skin the shifter said that Dean was jealous that Sam got to go pursue his dreams and had friends, while Dean couldn't, because he had a responsibility to his Dad and hunting, but that's the only instance where I can think that resentment was brought up on Dean's side.  It wasn't said by Dean, even though we can surmise it's something he feels, but he hasn't said it out loud, and as @DeeDee79 said, Dean has also verbally praised Sam for being smart and going to college.  I think how it would compare in a real life setting is if an older sibling had always given everything they had to a family and had to continue to bare the brunt of those responsibilities alone, while watching their younger sibling go off to college.  Maybe the older sibling was intelligent and would've had things he or she wanted to do, but let's say for the sake of argument, that they had to care for a a parent that has an illness of some kind and was likely to die without that support.  Sure, the older sibling can leave and do whatever they want, but that responsibility to their parent and maybe supporting them with a job is what they and the family have come to rely on the older sibling to do, and the older sibling knows his or her role and accepts it, but if the older sibling then watches their younger sibling go off to college, I think in that instance that it would be as common as not for the older sibling to feel resentment alongside varying levels of pride or happiness for their younger sibling.  

Dean was a 22 year old by the time Sam had left. If Dean really wanted to make a better life for himself and wanted to go to school, he could've done so. Dean didn't necessarily have to hunt like John did. But that was his choice. Between Sam and Dean, Dean had way more power growing up because he was the oldest. Sam didn't have the same amount of power as Dean did and often had to follow orders from both John and Dean. The only authority that Dean had to face growing up was John. However, Sam had the authority of both John and Dean, therefore, he didn't have the same freedom as a child. He was constantly overprotected, with John and Dean constantly watching him like a hawk. It didn't help that Sam was a "special child" that was capable of turning evil or going to the dark side due to something that wasn't even his fault to begin with. So, to sum it up, Dean didn't have to hunt. He chose to hunt. Dean was an adult that could have made the decision to defy his father and their lifestyle of hunting and go to college to pursue what he wanted. But he didn't. He chose to stick with the family business and that was his decision. Just like Sam deciding to not be a part of hunting/the family business and go off to college to get an education was Sam's decision. Both Sam and Dean were adults. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by sugarbabex23
Fixing grammatical errors.

[CluelessDrifter]

Just now, sugarbabex23 said:

Dean was a 22 year old by the time Sam had left. If Dean really wanted to make a better life for himself and wanted to go to school, he could;ve done so. Dean didn't necessarily have to hunt like John did. But that was his choice. Between Sam and Dean, Dean had way more power growing up because he was the oldest. Sam didn't have the same power and often had to follow orders from both John and Dean. The only authority that Dean had to face growing up was John. However, Sam had the authority of both John and Dean, therefore, he didn't have the same freedom as a child. He was constantly overprotecting with John and Dena constantly watching him like a hawk. It didn't help that Sam was a "special child" that was capable of turning evil or going to the dark side due to something that wasn't even his fault to begin with. So, to sum it up, Dena didn't have to hunt. He chose to hunt. Dean was an adult that could have made the decision to defy his father and their lifestyle of hunting and go to college to pursue what he wanted. But he didn't. He chose to stick with the family business and that was his decisions. Just like Sam deciding to not be a part of hunting/the family business and go off to college to get an education was Sam's decision. Both Sam and Dean were adults. 

I respect your opinion, but I thought my example was clear, and it seems to have been disregarded, so I'm going to say agree to disagree at this point?

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I thought my example was clear, and it seems to have been disregarded

It was clear to me!

[sugarbabex23]

9 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

This was John's perspective in Dead Man's Blood:

"You gotta understand something. After your mother passed all I saw was evil, everywhere. And all I cared about was keeping you boys alive. I wanted you...prepared. Ready. Except somewhere along the line I ... uh ... I stopped being your father and I ... I became your, your drill sergeant. So when you said that you wanted to go away to school, all I could think about, my only thought was, that you were gonna be alone. Vulnerable. Sammy, it just... it never occurred to me what you wanted."

And we knew he was concerned enough to check up on Sam and also knew that Azazel had plans for Sam, so I can see why he wasn't thrilled with the idea of Sam leaving, getting complacent, being alone, and staying in one place where he would have been easier for Azazel to track down (not that Azazel seemed particularly happy about it either, or Jess wouldn't have died).  Should John have told Sam he didn't want Sam to go, because it scared him?  Yes.  Should he have handled it in the exact wrong way and kicked Sam out for it?  No.  Should he have told Sam about Azazel's plans?  I'm not sure.  Probably, but I don't know how Sam would have reacted, and we wouldn't have had season 2, which is tied as my favorite season, if John had told them all of that before he died. 
 

I completely understand your point of view and even agree in some parts. However, I feel that John and Dean have a really bad habit of infantilizing Sam and treating him like he's incapable or like he's a child. But it's not just during Sam's adulthood that this was occurring. This has been a consistent pattern with John and Dean in their treatment of Sam since childhood. The fact that Dean and John lied to Sam about the hunting world or about supernatural creatures for so long and kept him in the dark. Sam was lied to for 8 years of his life. And the only reason why Sam even found out about the hunting life to begin with was because he was curious and found out for himself. Nobody told him anything. It was kind of insulting to Sam for John and Dean to not say anything about hunting or about the supernatural dangers out there, or about demons or about the fact that he was a "special child" that could potentially be corrupted and turn evil during his young adulthood because of a demon deal that his mother made (and ended up dying for). One could argue that John and Dean kept all those secrets and lied to Sam to preserve his innocence but to me, that only furthers my belief that John and Dean had a bad habit of infantilizing Sam. Sam was a smart, practical kid. I think he would have handled the truth just fine if they were upfront about everything instead of lying to him. It probably made Sam feel lonely and ostracized.

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, sugarbabex23 said:

The fact that Dean and John lied to Sam about the hunting world or about supernatural creatures for so long and kept him in the dark. Sam was lied to for 8 years of his life. And the only reason why Sam even found out about the hunting life to begin with was because he was curious and found out for himself. Nobody told him anything. It was kind of insulting to Sam for John and Dean to not say anything about hunting or about the supernatural dangers out there, or about demons or about the fact that he was a "special child" that could potentially be corrupted and turn evil during his young adulthood because of a demon deal that his mother made (and ended up dying for)

I never got the impression that John and Dean were never planning on telling Sam about the supernatural. That would have been almost impossible given their lifestyle, even if they had wanted to; even if Sam hadn't been bright and curious, at a certain age, John and Dean couldn't possibly have explained away all of the bizarre aspects of their lives. I'm pretty sure they were just planning on telling him when he was older. I've actually always wondered when and why John decided to tell Dean about the supernatural world, but that's probably a topic for another thread. 

I think Sam was still young enough when he found out that not telling him doesn't fall under the category of "lying," but of protecting him. Kids aren't entitled to know everything, and in fact, a good parent doesn't burden their young children with the unvarnished truth in all cases, which isn't age appropriate.

John not telling adult Sam and Dean the truth about Azazel is a different matter, but frankly, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree on that one. Sam and Dean have both done plenty of lying to each other.

I do agree with you that it was, at least in the early seasons, sometimes hard for Dean to overcome the big brother/little brother dynamic and see Sam as a fully equal partner, rather than as a beloved younger brother who needed protecting. That's what I think Sam was addressing in Fallen Idols. He wasn't, IMO, blaming Dean for his own bad choices, but suggesting that those choices occurred in the context of a sibling dynamic that he now understands wasn't entirely healthy.

To use an analogy,  loving, responsible parents who are maybe also somewhat too strict with their child as he enters his teenage years are not at fault if that child, despite ample care, education, and supervision, winds up a heroin addict. That's down to the son's horrendously irresponsible decision to start using, and was not in any way a likely or foreseeable outcome of parents holding the leash a little too tight. However that  recognition isn't inconsistent with acknowledging that some part of the son's motivation for going down the wrong path might have been rebellion against parents he saw as controlling. So, if the son, now an adult and clean after a stint in rehab, told his parents that as much as he understood he had done wrong and would need to regain their trust, if their relationship was going to work, they couldn't keep him under 24-lock down waiting for him to mess up again -- which was part of the dynamic that had contributed to his acting out in the first place -- I don't think that would be a deflection of responsibility, but an honest assessment of an unhealthy aspect of an otherwise strong relationship.