#double-standards

I'm specifically talking about the "one of the Ineffables gets captured and the other one comes in powers blazing to heroically rescue them" genre of fics for this, for context.

And the double-standard is that, in those fics, Human kidnappers are treated much more leniently than Angel/Demon kidnappers, and honestly even Angels get more lenience than Demons!

What i mean is, when a Human summons/kidnaps/tortures Aziraphale or Crowley, 9 times out of 10 the Ineffable who comes to save his captured partner will just knock out the humans/miracle them away/mind-control miracle them into being good people.

But when an Angel/Demon is the kidnapper they'll actually dole out some justice and beat up/kill them, especially if it's a Demon. Sometimes Angels will just be sent back to Heaven or negotiated with, so Demons get it harsher than either of the other two.

And this double-standard pisses me off because it's like, Crowley/Aziraphale(whichever one gets captured) isn't worth as much as their Human tormentors, because it says that it's ok to almost kill Crowley/Aziraphale but god forbid the Human(s) who tortured them get hurt in any way!

And also the double-standard with how the Angel/Demon kidnappers are treated vs the Human ones pisses me off because it implies, like the other one, that Humans are inherently worth more than the other species and that Angels and especially Demons are lesser than Humans just because of their species and their deaths don't matter as much!

Throughout the movie, a lot of people die for things other people have done. But while the Patriots regard every man who dons the king's uniform as just culpable as Tavington, we're meant to see every civilian as innocent. Even though an old man with one leg is the militia's main supplier, the most successful argument for joining the militia is made by a woman, and children are killing British soldiers. With the exception of the children--and the original script had the bodies of dead children used as props in several scenes thankfully scraped before filming--everyone Tavington burns in that church has either directly aided the militia or kept quiet about people who did.

Okay, I lied: two more. A related double-standard has the narrative coming down like a ton of bricks on British soldiers (and Captain Wilkins!) for following Tavinton's orders even as they look absolutely anguished while doing so. If it makes you feel that icky, don't do it, asshole! But when the militiamen arrive to find their families burned up, we're meant to sympathize with their anguish like this had nothing to do with them. This is not the first dragoon attack on civilians following the prisoner exchange. It's not the third. Or the fifth. By the time Martin finds out that Tavington has a list of his men's names and addresses, the dragoons have burned seven of their homes. John Billings' is the eighth. If Martin were as concerned about British attacks on civilians as he claims to Cornwallis, why does he not warn the congregation of Pembroke church, most of whom are at his son's wedding, that their names may be on that list? Instead, they go about their business as usual and become Murder and Arson Case 9.

This will surprise no one: I love the church burning scene. It is the most spectacularly cinematic moment in the movie, and when I first rewatched it after not seeing it for ten years or more, this is the moment that had lived most vividly in my memory. And it's Jason Isaacs at his campy, cunty best. I'm glad he killed them. I'm glad. I would much rather have this scene than a kinder, fairer representation of an imperial force that held much of the world under its boot for two centuries.

Palestinian man: my sister-in-law is the lone survivor from my wife’s family because she lives in another house, but the last message we received from her was her asking us for forgiveness because she’s lost all hope and is now just waiting to die. She says they can’t escape because all roads are blocked by rubble, and all of Gaza is being bombarded equally.

Radio 4 host: I know you’re grieving and are concerned, but do you think all this could have been averted if the kidnapped elderly and children were returned to Israel?

My jaw dropped listening to this inhumane creature ask such a question to a man crying on the phone on the radio.

Can you imagine if an Israeli was asked: do you think all the Israeli deaths and the kidnappings could’ve been averted if Israel had treated Palestinians with dignity and humanity throughout the decades? The interviewer would’ve been fired, called an anti-Semite and terrorist sympathiser.

Israel and the West have decided that the Palestinians are not human. They’ve decided they are less than animals now actually. Remember the dogs saved by the RAF during the evacuations of Afghanistan?

2. Same anon. I don't think we should be throwing around words like homophobia lightly or based on rumors about how Ackles made a showrunner change the character based on his preferences etc. Ackles maybe homophobic - we don't know for sure. All I know is that from my experience, the Destiel fandom is as toxic as the Sterek fandom. Sure, Ackles shares part of the blame as he makes hundreds of thousands of dollars off these fans at the various cons - ( contd. in part 3)

3. But that does not mean that actors or their family should be subject to cyber bullying and online hate or that the showrunners should pander to this toxic fanbase. Scott would have been and was sidelined to pander to and queerbait Sterek fans and he was called homophobic when he pointed out how nonsensical the ship was. Destiel is the same and I don't mind Ackles not giving two shits about acting out a badly written scene pushed in to appease a toxic fanbase. Just my two cents.

Okay, first off, I want to say the only anon I've ever gotten that used Tyler Posey and "double-standards" in the same sentence has been the Asshole Anon I tagged. And given the fact that this anon was in my inbox within an hour of posting that ask, it stands to reason that my paranoia is well founded. This would not be the first time they've tried to trick anyone into a "Gotcha!" moment, and I was the next on the rotation of people they harass.

That being said and out of the way, let's get into this.

Starting off, you're right. Claims of homophobia shouldn't be a joke. Homophobia is a very real thing that affects many people around the world. And given the shipping fandoms that habe arisen in the past decade, along with thr use of social media by celebrities, it allows these fans to harass and belittle them from the comfort of their homes, no matter where said celebrity is. I would never make jokes regarding how fans treat the loved ones of their favorite celebrities, because I find it abhorrent. We saw something similar to his happen with the Star Wars fandom, particularly the R*ylos, when they doxxed and harassed Adam Driver's wife in the hopes that he and Daisy Ridley would get together, thus fulfilling the fantasy they have about their ship.

I don't keep up with the actors of Supernatural because I don't watch it anymore, but I imagine that's the case with Jensen's wife. Fans harassing her because she married him and they've based their entire personality and fandom experience around a ship between two fictional characters and the actor's personal life interferes with that fantasy. The fans that are harassing Jensen and his family aren't doing it out of any sense of morality in their efforts to fight homophobia, but because they want to see Dean and Cas together, and can't (or won't) accept that they're fictional characters played by two actors that have their own private lives.

Something similar happened with the Sherlock fandom, when they decided to cancel Martin Freeman and his wife because they asked fans to stop sending them NSFW fanart or J*hnl*ck, especially when they were with their children. I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy on that one, because I've never watched BBC Sherlock, but I did follow a few blogs that did so I remember the discourse. This all just feeds into the idea that shipping fandoms "own" the actors that play their favorite characters and has made for quite a toxic environment on most social media.

If the D*stiel fandom is anything like the St*r*k fandom or the J*hnl*ck fandom , than I applaud Jensen for standing his ground in the face of what I'm sure is countless inappropriate fics and art that are constantly thrown at him.

Now, there are a few differences between how Jensen is being accused of being homophobic and how Tyler was accused of being homophobic. The first major difference is something you said in this ask. They're jokes. Keeping in mind that, yes, I did say we shouldn't joke about homophobia, all the "discourse" around D*stiel has been jokes due to a variety of reasons. From how uncomfortable Jensen looked in that scene (leading some to think they were filmed separately and not told how the other was reacting) to the fact that it was happening during election week before the election was called. The fact that the rumors that Putin was stepping down came out at the same time and the whole situation took on this hysterical, otherworldly quality, like this was a collective fever dream we couldn't wake up from. The jokes came about, breaking the tension that had consumed Tumblr and uniting a large number of people in the absurdity of everything.

There's also the fact that the jokes about Jensen being homophobic were just that - jokes! I'll admit that I haven't gone looking, but I haven't seen anyone calling for Jensen to be cancelled or for his career to be derailed or his life to be ruined because of that scene. No, I've seen countless jokes about how Dean looked constipated or memes of random images found on people's phones used to "recreate" that scene. The fact that Jensen apparently wrote into his contract that his character in The Boys wasn't to have a gay sex scene just added to the satirical nature of everything.

Now let's compare that to Tyler Posey. When asked about a crack ship (that had nothing to do with his character) for the umpteenth time, he said that, if that's what fans were watching for, they're probably watching for the wrong reasons. It never condemned the ship or mocked its fans, he simply said that they were watching for the wrong reasons. And given how this interview took place after filming was done for that season, that could be interpreted as him saving people from wasting their time on something that wasn't going to happen. Personally, I just think he was fed up and frustrated about being asked about a crack ship that had nothing to do with him.

And for that one simple sentence, he was (and still is) deluged with hate. He received death threats and threats against his mother while she was battling cancer, all because he said something that wasn't a glowing appraisal of a ship that the fandom made up. To this day, there are people hell bent on proving how Scott was the true villain of the Teen Wolf series, and how Tyler Posey is just an awful human being.

Did any of those things happen to Jensen? No.

Would those things have probably happened to Jared if he'd said something negative about D*stiel? Probably.

Would the Teen Wolf fandom have acted the way it did if it had been Hoechlin or O'Brien who shot down St*r*k? Definitely not. We know that because they both did say something against St*r*k and the fandom at large likes to pretend that it never happened.