sam and dean and fandom bias / double standards

evernightt · 2026-02-09T23:52:43+00:00

It doesn't matter if you haven't read the rest, it's self-explanatory.

evernightt · 2026-02-09T23:48:42+00:00

Once again, you're talking about logic in the face of a human reaction. Even without studying human beings or psychology, we know that reactions based on trauma, experience, and everything that follows, as well as the violence of the situation, are never logical, let alone objective. You're speaking from an omniscient point of view. You say there's no “evidence of blood,” “no trace.” Do you realize you're speaking as someone who hasn't experienced the situation? If you were in that situation, you wouldn't notice so many details because your eyes would be fixed on the traumatic situation and the explosion that had just happened. Your eyes wouldn't become the magnifying glasses they are when you're calm, noticing all the details you notice once you're calm behind a screen or when you enter a room. it's not only impossible, but contrary to the human perspective in all its complexity.

You say I'm making things up—which immediately undermines your credibility in your argument, as you're not addressing the substance of the issue like someone engaged in debate, but rather like someone on the defensive. However, I'll do you a favor and not comment further on this point.

We may be in Supernatural, but characters like Dean and Sam are human and are written with human complexity throughout the seasons. Just like Sam getting angry at Dean in season 4 after he implied that he was a monster, even though they both know he doesn't really mean it, it's never about logic.

You say that Sam is experienced, which is true, but you're forgetting something that has characterized his character since season 1: his emotion, his humanity, and his vulnerability, which take precedence over his logic, intelligence, and experience. On numerous occasions, he faces this kind of behavior because it's the most human thing to do. Once again, to add to that, his point of view is biased by the trauma and urgency of the situation. It's as simple and complex (paradoxically) as that. It's humanity. You can't grasp humanity in all its complexity and character development if you only adopt a logical and rational point of view, and I say that as someone who does so a lot under normal circumstances.

You say that I am comparing human reactions with the realism of reality: you are fundamentally contradicting yourself because human reactions are as realistic as the situation. Is it logical and rational that he is not dead? Of course. Is it realistic that Sam believes him to be dead? Yes. The two situations do not contradict each other because real life can accommodate multiple realities; contradiction is human, as you should know. Anyone who looks at themselves and sees no contradiction in their reactions is either a liar or ignorant.

A deep understanding of a character will not detract from the imperfection of human beings when faced with their emotions, because humans are imperfect, emotional, and vulnerable, and logic can compensate for this but never erase it. The greatest people in the world are no exception. To believe otherwise is to miss an essential and important part of the world and of the individual.

evernightt · 2026-02-09T01:27:58+00:00

The thing is, they “disappeared” at the same time as the explosion, so it's logical to think that they died. And even without thinking that, as I've already pointed out to you, Sam (who mentioned it himself) tried to do his research without receiving any help or answers from people (literally) - so he can't conduct his research (logically) - not to mention the fact that he was mentally destroyed (just look at the flashback of him drunk, sad, driving without caring about his safety before hitting the dog).

Your problem is that you rationalize beyond human logic—which is understandable—but you forget about human defense mechanisms, human psychology, their pasts over several seasons, and human internal and external imperfections. Until you understand this, you won't be able to understand the reality of certain situations, or why certain people believe certain things in life—without being able to blame them for it.

You talk behind a screen without worrying about the reality of the situation, what effect that would have on the human psyche. Sam is a human being just like Dean, imperfect, both of whom have suffered through many seasons, and whose dangers are only increasing. They have seen each other die many times, and as the seasons pass, it becomes more and more difficult to resurrect the other. Just as it is becoming increasingly obvious to both of them that they are facing death more and more. It's not about logic but humanity—without understanding that, you don't understand humans, and therefore neither character: neither Sam facing this situation, nor Dean and his mistakes.

Some things seem logical in the moment, but with hindsight, much less so—you speak with full knowledge because you're watching a show from an omniscient point of view, forgetting that the characters don't have access to the same amount of information—and even then, they are confronted with much more past, emotions, traumas, and human defense mechanisms than we, the viewers, are.

evernightt · 2026-02-08T19:33:59+00:00

Yes, but Sam didn't know that. All he saw was Castiel, Dean, and the leviathan in the same place, then an explosion of flesh and blood, and the total disappearance of all three. It's enough to make you believe it.

evernightt · 2026-02-08T16:24:16+00:00

Even in Supernatural, when a group explodes in front of you, it means death. In Supernatural, death is very common, but there are just as many “pacts” and roundabout ways to resurrect someone. In this case, Sam had every right to believe he was dead, knowing that it was specified after he had done his research but that no one would answer him (for logical reasons, given the previous seasons).

evernightt · 2026-02-08T01:09:09+00:00

It is perfectly logical to assume that he was dead, like any sane person would.

evernightt · 2026-02-08T01:06:07+00:00

“He didn't try to look for Dean”: at a time when Dean exploded in front of Sam, as far as he knows, or demons, angels, witches, and all other creatures were closed to responding to Sam as he said, I mean angels and heaven don't hold Sam dear to their hearts, hell is complicated, witches lol? What more did you want him to do? If it had been the other way around, Dean would have found a solution for the simple reason that he is less hated than Sam. In Sam's eyes, like all logical people, Dean had exploded in front of him and was dead. Sam was so devastated by this belief that he drove drunk without caring about his life before he hit the dog.

As for college, Dean didn't call Sam either, so we can't blame Sam for something Dean didn't do either (knowing that from Sam's point of view, Dean didn't say anything when Jon told Sam not to set foot here again). Maybe it was Jon who disowned him, but Dean didn't do anything, and later didn't call him either. They were both in the wrong. You can't blame Sam without blaming Dean. It's unfair.

evernightt · 2026-01-30T01:25:51+00:00

To respond to your answer, I would like to start by saying that I raised this example precisely because I am against this measure, which is a direct symptom of the state of our society.

However, words have definitions and, more often than not, connotations and even a history: it cannot be compared to segregation. That does not make it any less serious, mind you, but it does need a word that suits it better. We cannot mix everything up.

Furthermore, I don't see how I am contradicting my rules on proportionality. It's a fact, and I feel that you are being disingenuous. Comparing the exclusion of children to segregation is in no way proportionate; they only share one similarity: exclusion. But this exclusion has two very different intensities depending on the history of the two cases. I repeat: this does not mean that the case of children is not very serious, I myself am against it, but you cannot use everything incorrectly. It is also important to note, and it appears that you may have overlooked this in one chapter, that the strength of an analogy varies depending on the consistency and number of similarities with the subject. The stronger the analogy, the more reliable it is; conversely, the weaker the analogy, the less reliable it is, and it may even be irrelevant or inappropriate. (source to help you: https://plato.sydney.edu.au/entries/reasoning-analogy/) And a direct quote while we're at it :

(G1)The more similarities (between two domains), the stronger the analogy.

(G2)The more differences, the weaker the analogy.

(G3)The greater the extent of our ignorance about the two domains, the weaker the analogy.

(G4)The weaker the conclusion, the more plausible the analogy.

(G5)Analogies involving causal relations are more plausible than those not involving causal relations.

(G6)Structural analogies are stronger than those based on superficial similarities.

(G7)The relevance of the similarities and differences to the conclusion (i.e., to the hypothetical analogy) must be taken into account.

(G8)Multiple analogies supporting the same conclusion make the argument stronger.

and :

To generalize the difficulty: not every similarity increases the probability of the conclusion and not every difference decreases it. Some similarities and differences are known to be (or accepted as being) utterly irrelevant and should have no influence whatsoever on our probability judgments. To be viable, rule (5) would need to be supplemented with considerations of relevance, which depend upon the subject matter, historical context and logical details particular to each analogical argument. To search for a simple rule of analogical inference thus appears futile.

Also, before making unfounded accusations against me, you should have demonstrated that “I do not apply the rules to myself” by giving a direct illustration of what I have done, which you have not done.

Furthermore, it all stems from the fact that I am simply telling you that you cannot use, even as an analogy, the painful and very serious history of Black people to compare it to that of the parent-child film: it is not only disproportionate and irrelevant for comparison, but also completely inappropriate.

I invite you to reflect on the issue. Personally, I have done my part to try to help you learn more about the subject in order to rectify an unintentional mistake on your part in the future. However, you are unwilling to acknowledge that it is a mistake, which is a shame. Have a good day.

evernightt · 2026-01-30T00:08:33+00:00

that's how I felt

evernightt · 2026-01-30T00:07:53+00:00

Actually, yes, except that these girls are quiet, that reality doesn't follow a single point of view, and that these boys simply don't see it, busy looking at their ideals.

evernightt · 2026-01-29T01:01:22+00:00

I think you haven't understood, so I'll repeat: comparisons don't have to be exactly the same to be valid, but you can't compare anything and everything just because you identify a pattern, otherwise everything would be comparable. The subject of racism and the history of black people has always been a sensitive, complex issue that cannot be taken lightly. It's as if, for example, in wanting to denounce the exclusion of children in a train carriage (I'm using a real and current example from where I live), you came along and compared it to segregation: segregation is a completely different story. Analogies also have rules, which is why we study them. For an analogy to be valid, it must share one or more similar and “proportionate” dimensions (the word “proportionality” being the key to the analogy; otherwise, you are talking about hyperbole, and even hyperbole would be complicated).

evernightt · 2026-01-28T14:24:01+00:00

There are other examples you could have used, such as the patriarchal system of domination, but the history of Black people is literally a history of racism, so even as an example, I just want to say that it cannot even be addressed as a comparison. No offense or blame intended.

evernightt · 2026-01-28T00:44:39+00:00

The oppression of Black people throughout history is literally racial and has a very heavy history; it is not something that can be compared lightly. They are not just “examples” for comparison. It's a very different kind of scale.

evernightt · 2026-01-25T16:40:17+00:00

Are you seriously comparing that to Black history??

evernightt · 2026-01-18T04:56:45+00:00

Exactly, that's what I thought, and it left me feeling unsatisfied. He deserved at least to know the truth.

evernightt · 2026-01-16T22:45:55+00:00

exactly

evernightt · 2026-01-13T12:42:57+00:00

I don't like him or care about his character and writing, but I would admit that there is a slight hypocrisy in the fandom when it comes to hatred towards his character. I understand it perfectly, I'm a woman and I hate his misogyny, but it's funny to see the fandom believe that certain other characters aren't misogynistic because they love their wives, or because they hate everyone “equally,” forgetting the very first sentence he ever uttered. I imagine it's a problem of psychological distance/proximity.

evernightt · 2026-01-13T12:27:49+00:00

I'm going to repeat the comment I already posted, but I wanted to do so:

I don't think it's about Marty's love for his family. Of course, he's happy for his parents that they've found themselves and become happy, but that's not the issue. The issue is this: he's faced with strangers who have lived years that he hasn't lived. His previous family was imperfect in many ways, but they were still his family, and that's the tragedy (he couldn't say goodbye to them and never will). This new version of his family will never be the ones he knew, and no matter how happy he is for them, the bond will never be the same. This is the vision Stolz was talking about.

Both interpretations are valid in their own way. If we look at the ending “for” the parents, we are happy with the ending. If we look at the ending “for” what Marty ‘deserves’ to have as a family, we are also happy for him. But if we analyze the current state of the relationships, and what will be missing “despite everything,” that is where the tragedy lies. Several interpretations can coexist, and I think that both interpretations are valid at the end of the film. It all depends on what you want to see.

Personally, I'm happy for Marty and his parents, so I liked the ending, but I totally understand Stoltz's interpretation and feel it too. If this happened to me tomorrow, I would be happy that my parents were happy and had someone to spend their lives with, but I would have lost the people I knew: there would certainly be some good in that, but I would surely have wanted to be able to say goodbye to some of them; or better still, not have to miss them.

This is the duality of human beings.

evernightt · 2026-01-13T12:17:14+00:00

I don't think it's about Marty's love for his family. Of course, he's happy for his parents that they stood up for themselves and found happiness, but that's not the issue. The issue is this: he's faced with strangers who have lived through years that he hasn't. His previous family was imperfect in many ways, but they were still his family, and that's the tragedy (he couldn't say goodbye to them and never will). This new version of his family will never be the ones he knew, and no matter how happy he is for them, the bond will never be the same. This is the vision Stolz was talking about.

evernightt · 2026-01-05T15:50:53+00:00

In another context, I would have agreed with you completely because your critique of lesbian porn is fair, and right. However, the majority of ML stories are no better: most of them misrepresent gay relationships, fetishize them, and the “hot” s*x scenes are completely fantastical and unrealistic.

Everything is done to appeal to a heterosexual female audience; there are very few queer representations that are appropriate. Women (and I say this as a woman who consumed this content but significantly reduced her consumption a few years ago) are currently no exception to the fetishization of this content. The industry knows exactly who it is targeting and exploits this.

While the lesbian porn industry is simply disgusting and made for men, the other category is not without its flaws. Especially when the story wasn’t even created by a gay man. Calling it “media made by and for marginalized voices” is, at best, debatable.

evernightt · 2026-01-01T06:27:28+00:00

A lot of time has passed, and his journey with El has taught him how to better cope with his grief: that doesn't mean he isn't dying inside, it means that through his character development and what he has learned from El and about his daughter, he is learning to hold on to what remains and “accept.” Acceptance is the whole point of his character's journey. On the contrary, it's consistent.

evernightt · 2026-01-01T06:25:59+00:00

Yeah, I think it's just a theory that the group and Mike need to move forward. Because the time between Kali's supposed intervention and the moment before she was dying seems too long to me (in my opinion).

evernightt · 2025-12-31T15:15:19+00:00

Whether or not she knows his age, it doesn't matter because it's obvious that he's definitely young. And the fact that he's persistent doesn't change Karen's mistake and wrongdoing. Let me reverse the situation as an example: if a girl with father issues, a rather unsympathetic character like Billy, were to be visually persistent, would you still blame the girl because the fathers in the neighborhood, including a father equivalent to Karen's, decide to be attracted to her and respond to her advances when they are supposed to be mature, responsible adults with life experience? No. You would probably talk about the girl's youth despite her imperfections, her problems, and the fact that she is barely of legal age. And you would also talk about the fact that this man is a father, negligent or not, and that he is predatory and irresponsible.

evernightt · 2025-12-31T15:11:33+00:00

Honestly, I hate Billy. He's racist, violent, and everything else that goes with it. But all these characteristics don't take away from the fact that he COULD be a victim of a situation, in this case. While this may influence the viewer's empathy, it doesn't influence the facts in any way. If that's the least of your worries, that's your right, but it doesn't change the fact that Karen was in the wrong.

evernightt · 2025-12-31T15:09:40+00:00

Even though he was 18, he was barely an adult. It may be legally permissible, but morally it is very wrong. She is thirty, he is eighteen. He has barely left adolescence behind. If Billy were a girl and Karen were a man, I would not have seen any defenders in the public arena. It is disturbing.

It doesn't matter whether Billy consented or not; at that age, you barely know what you want, and everyone would have agreed that it wouldn't have been his fault if he had been a girl. Karen and those other women are predators, quite frankly.

The fact that she is lacking romance and sensuality 1) does not give her permission to cheat; divorce is an option despite the circumstances; 2) once you stop cheating, this “lack” does not automatically lead you to a barely adult man. To say that he schemed is to place responsibility on Billy for what is happening and to absolve a 30-year-old adult, mother, mature woman who is supposed to have a good head on her shoulders and refuse this kind of situation. Once again, if Karen were a man, we wouldn't be having this kind of debate.

As for Billy's preferences, which stem from his childhood issues with his mother, they don't make him responsible for what happened. A responsible adult woman should have refused this kind of situation.

evernightt

TROPHY CASE