spnanonhaven

Entry tags:

show & fandom

#84

This post is for show discussion and fandom gossip only. NO ACTOR GOSSIP, NO ACTOR BASHING!!
THIS JOURNAL LOGS IPS.
Backup location:

spnanonhaven

RULES:
1. No posting f-locked content.
2. No linking between RL and online identities.
3. Keep the actor gossip to these posts or take it to

spn_gossip.
4. Keep spoilery information out of thread titles.
5. No embedding music.
6. Embedded images must be SFW.

KEY:
AYRT = "I am the anon you're replying to." | DA = "I am a different anon from the one you're replying to, and already commented somewhere else on this thread."
NA = "I'm a new anon who has not commented on this thread before." | SA = "I'm the same anon, replying to my own comment to edit/elaborate."
AIRT = "The anon I replied to." | ITT = "In this thread." | OP = "Original post / original poster."

american bald eagle - image source

Off-Topic | Fanworks Discussion | Reference | Flatview

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ugh. That right there is what makes me just want to give up on the show. I spent more time than I care to think about defending the honour of s4 against mobiusklein and that ilk over on the TWoP forums, and getting raegy when they would say things like "I don't see any difference between robo!Sam and regular Sam." And now we're going in for round fifteen or whatever of the "Sam Winchester is a selfish douchebag" debate, and I just don't know if I have it in me, especially when it looks like TPTB have come down on the side of Sam being a selfish douchebag.

Blargh.

Yeah. Someone's already explaining in another thread that Dean giving Sam the Barbie in AVSC = awesome gift, Sam giving Dean the amulet = shitty gift. Hide your Sams, the EDGs are back.

da

Please, I really want you to show me where people are saying that about the Barbies. Really. We're saying there's a difference in the intent behind them, not that it was an ~awesome gift.

I love when people label E*Gs simply because they don't like something.

da

And not just E*Gs, either! Now we also get lovely claims like "you seem like an extremely bitter and negative person that knows nothing about kids or siblings."

I love it when people break out nasty insults over differences in opinion on a plot point of a TV show.

ayrt

That too. -_- Or being told that you haven't been poor because of your opinion, that's what I love to hear. I'm all about discussion but I don't understand why people feel the need to make hurtful assumptions when they're not necessary.

ayrt

Yup. You must automatically be a rich troll who has never been a kid and has no siblings if you don't especially feel a lot of love for the amulet backstory. Brilliant. I'm not going to bother replying to anyone else in that thread.

ayrt

Yeah, I wouldn't. When it gets to personal attacks, any reasonable discussion is over. It's also frustrating for that one troll going around and calling other people trolls in response to perfectly polite/legitimate comments, but that's nothing new around here.

ayrt

Fair enough. It sounds like people are hot to over-react against anything that might come across as bashing Sam thanks to the spoilers, but that's something that frustrates me a lot. I've been defending Sam most of the day and think he's one of the most selfless characters on the whole show, but I don't happen to like the amulet or that it was regifted. Apparently that makes me a terrible person who hates Sam. :/

Blablablablabla. Poor Troll.

DA - nonnie, I was the one who said that your comment made me think you'd never been poor. I apologize: that was out of line.

I did grow up poor, and there was a LOT of re-gifting, but I shouldn't universalize my experience like that.

NA The jerk!anon was being nasty first to people over a thing in a TV show.

The OP anon was ranting and insulted a TV character in the process of slamming a plot point that they didn't like. The people we're talking about are insulting actual real life other people and have gone way OTT in doing so.

Keep trying to play the victim card, troll. You acted nasty and got some well deserved nasty in return.

How exactly is saying "this plot point didn't work for me and I don't want to see it back" acting nasty? It insults no one, certainly not anyone who actually exists. It's okay to not like things, anon.

You are certainly quick to be dishonest about your own behavior. Nobody is blaming you for not liking something, it's your way of expressing that dislike that makes you an ass.

ayrt

Since that is exactly what I said, I guess I get the fun of adding an undeserved "liar" insult to the list.

Man, meme sucks today.

So you didn't make a wild out of the blue rant at someone for daring to mention something you don't like?

You are right, meme sucks today because of people like you.

Re: What pisses me off most about these spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-16 18:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What pisses me off most about these spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-16 18:59 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What pisses me off most about these spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-16 19:05 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What pisses me off most about these spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-16 19:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What pisses me off most about these spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-16 19:11 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What pisses me off most about these spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-16 19:13 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What pisses me off most about these spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-16 18:55 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What pisses me off most about these spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-16 19:01 (UTC) - Expand

da

We were not that anon, so that's irrelevant to what was said directly to us.

da

Good point.

ayrt

I label that anon EDG because of "snotty Sammy" and they find AVSC too focused on wee!Sam.

Those were two separate anons. I know, because I'm the second one you're talking about and I don't and have never referred to Sam as "snotty". They retracted that comment, btw.

What I said about AVSC being too focused on wee!Sam, btw, was that it felt to me that it was glossing over the fact that Sam wasn't the only kid abandoned by his dad and who didn't get a Christmas. We got Sam's perspective on that, but not Dean's.

Da Oh no, we didn't get Dean's perspective on something, when the show is usually 90% from Dean's perspective! The horror!

Really, nonnie, really?!

Did the brats at TWOP take a outing to the meme today?

...Huh? But at least the insults continue.

Well, that was a Sam focused flashback, just as Something Wicked was a Dean focused flashback. But both of them showed both kids as victims of John's neglect: the fact that Dean had to play John's part for Sam wasn't told from Dean's perspective, because it was Sam POV, but it was there in the narrative for the audience.

It was Sam POV partly because of the role reversal that was happening in current timeline, and partly because it was also about Sam finding out that John had lied to him all his life, which was Sam's particular part of the family dysfunction drama, just as the overresponsibility of Something Wicked was Dean's, and from Dean's POV.

I don't think either episode by being focused on one child glossed over the fact that the other was also involved in the neglect.

da

Uh, no. No one has said that Dean's gifts were the best possible ones out there, just that he stole them primarily for Sam while Sam's gift was primarily meant for John and only given to Dean at last minute. Both of the gifts turned out to be crappy but at least with Dean, making Sam happy had been his first priority.

That doesn't mean that Sam himself sucks or that Sam was a selfish kid or anything like that. Just that the amulet doesn't mean nearly as much to some people since it was never meant to symbolize the bond between Sam and Dean - it was always a last minute regifting that had been supposed to go to John.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only