#sam defense

Meanwhile, Dean—who abuses his friends and family as an outlet for his anger—is told that he is more than his anger, and that everything he does comes from a place of love.

Dean is interesting because he’s a self-proclaimed atheist, but when he discovers that angels are real, he takes the message that angels must be working for only good and demons must be working for only bad at face value, thus following the set path.

meanwhile dean stans can't say two sentences without going "ueue poor deanie weenie had such an awful childhood :(( john is the worst :(( it's all john's fault :(( dean's grown-up ass has no responsibility for his actions :(( because woobie dean has self worth issues :((((( boohoo :(( he STARVED for MONTHS so sammy's selfish, ungrateful ass could eat at a five stars restaurant :((("

Sam called out Dean because he was being a hypocrite.

There is no 100% acceptable reason to save Benny & Emma but kill Amy (and vice verse) Because such a thing just doesn't exist. That's why criminal law and the judiciary exist these days. Moreover, Sam and Dean do not have such authority. They are just hunters. Their job is not "killing every monster who killed people", or punishing monsters. Their job is saving people.

Sam and Dean killed an innocent victim who turned to a werewolf (or a vampire) who killed no one yet because they are dangerous. Sam and Dean, especially Dean killed lots of innocent vessels for self-defense and convenience. Sam and Dean wanted to kill Bobby's wife before they knew what exactly happened, Dean wanted to kill Jack because he knew jack could be dangerous even though Jack is an innocent baby, just like Emma.

But at the same time, they didn't kill Crowley who had killed probably more than hundreds, thousand. They didn't kill Cas when he come back even though he killed lots of people, more than Amy needless to say, they didn't kill witch couple they came across in S7. They didn't kill Rowena, Meg, etc... I like those characters so I don't mean that they should have been died. There were reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that if Sam and Dean killed them when they got a chance, they could have saved many victims who were killed by them.

What I want to say is that they always have to make a choice, Sam and Dean have to think hard when they decide if the killing is inevitable or not, because there is no such thing as a "code of law for hunters". There is no one, single rule that can be applied in any situation. There is no rule saying "you can kill Amy, Jack and you shouldn't kill Benny, Emma" (also vice versa)

Sam believed that Amy can change because he was able to see how much effort she made. She was working as a mortician. She killed her own mother because she wanted to change, she only killed criminals, even the polices were glad to know they died. Mostly she only killed for his son. Not that she is the mother of the year, what I want to say there are reasons, more than one when Sam believed Amy could be saved.

But Dean didn't.

I'm not saying that "Dean is wrong." As a hunter, his choice is pretty reasonable. But the problem is that he didn't try to convince or talk to Sam. Like I said since there is no "code of laws for hunters" if Dean wanted to kill Sam's friend, at least he really had to try to convince Sam why Amy has to die. Sam would understand that, or not, but at least that way he wouldn't so pissed when Dean decided that his daughter & friend deserves life.

Probably you want to say "but Benny and Emma didn't kill anyone yet" part true, part false, but anyway, that doesn't matter. Like I said Sam and Dean killed many monsters who didn't kill anyone because they are dangerous. Also, when Dean killed Amy, Dean didn't say "you killed people so this is a punishment." Dean said, "you will kill again." The thing matter more to Dean was the possibility of harming a person.

Emma is a victim, but Emma was not the first victim killed by Sam and Dean because they are dangerous and they are not the last. (Jack is also a victim in some way but Dean wanted to kill him too) also, she didn't show any clue of humanity like Jack or Amy did, she seemed hesitating only because Dean had a weapon. What happens if Dean let her go and this time she came back to actually kill Dean? Also, Sam who will try to protect his brother? If Dean being willing to kill the vessels of demons is justified because it is self-defense, why Sam's action should not be justified?

Benny already killed people before he died. He may have made atonement. But if Dean's logic is true, that doesn't matter because people can't change.

" No matter how hard you try, you are what you are. You will kill again. "

But nothing here actually can be the perfect justification for killing Emma and Benny because such a thing doesn't exist.

And it's same for Amy.

People change. Dean changed. Benny changed, (even though he did kill people after he resurrected) And... Amy could have been changed.

Sam wasn't angry just because his friend was killed. He was angry because Dean kept it a secret for a long time. Because Dean didn't trust Sam's judgment, he denied Sam's morality by killing Amy, didn't even try to convince him because Sam was "too unstable".

But Sam accepted it. Sam forgave that Dean killed his friend, forgave Dean lied. Sam accepted Dean's morality and " code of laws " for hunting, and that includes

" There are certain people in this world, no matter how dangerous they are, you just can't. You couldn't do it, so I did. That's what family does – the dirty work. "

Until Dean couldn't do the same thing for his daughter and friend. Until Dean decided to let monsters go without talking about it with Sam.

Me too, Anon! If you want to read a ton of really great analysis on this very topic, check out our Young Sam tag. That one is undoubtedly the most likely to yield results specifically about the concerns you have, but these may also have some relevant analysis: sam and family, sam and abuse, sam and formative experiences.

Too many people assume that because Sam’s experience was not equivalent to Dean’s, it was not challenging or damaging. Additionally, too many fans unquestioningly swallow the image of flawless-parent-Dean and take any assertions that Sam had a tough childhood as accusations against Dean, which they most certainly are not. There are also way too many ridiculous headcanons bouncing around in the fandom that a bunch of people accept as canon, like this one which queen-of-carven-stone so effectively refuted.

Dean certainly had many rough and harmful experiences that Sam can’t understand. Sam had many equally harmful experiences that Dean can’t possibly understand, too, and I think too many people forget that.

A short and incomplete highlight reel of Sam’s childhood experiences:

Sam has never known home or a mother’s love. The only life he remembers is the itinerant lifestyle of a hunter.

It’s the only life he’s ever known, and it is also a life he has never really felt a part of. He spent his childhood feeling unworthy and impure. His attempt to leave and seek a place he might belong ended up with his father disowning him.

Dean knew about hunting from a young age, but Sam was lied to for most of his young life and left alone in motel rooms as young as 9 years old and (and quite possibly as young as 5). Sam was dragged all over the U.S., dropped in motel rooms alone, and no one would tell him why they were doing that.

His English teacher when he was fourteen was the first person who asked what Sam wanted out of life rather than assuming that he’d go into the family business.

He had lost his mother and desperately wanted to know about her, but was yelled at when he asked. He didn’t know any/many of the details of her death until he was 22. He never knew Dean carried him out of the fire until then, either. He spent his whole freaking childhood seeking revenge for a loss he was never allowed to be a part of. Is it any wonder he thought to look elsewhere for a place to belong?

So many people in fanon assume that Dean always (or even often) supported Sam when he stood up against John. However… canon has scant evidence of this. In fact, most of the evidence points to Dean taking John’s side. 

The writers are not any sort of moral authority. Just because they say that we should condemn Sam for these traits does not mean we must. Each individual member of the audience brings their own perspective to the story, and the writers themselves are no exception. The narrative is inherently biased because it is determined by people aiming to promote their own ideals—ideals which often clash with our own.

You really cannot accurately assess a show so centered on these moral quandaries without first understanding what the narrative itself deems right and wrong. This is why literary analysis typically focuses on the universal topics of misogyny vs. feminism, marxism vs. capitalism, free will vs. fate/nature vs. nurture, the other vs. the status quo, etc. The message that a particular author concludes is not necessarily the story we see depicted, since we bring our own unique readings to the text.

Authorial intent exists. It is a writing decision to condemn Sam for his powers. However, if we look past the surface level, these powers are not shown to be any kind of innate evil. They are ultimately neutral and can be used to bring good into the world, which is exactly how Sam uses them and is also why he embraces his differences—the status quo is wrong, not him.

It is clear, though, that the narrative aims to vilify Sam for his powers (in a more generalized sense, for the way he differentiates from the status quo). The only problem? There’s nothing to vilify. Sam uses his powers for the purpose of helping people and preventing the apocalypse. The moral ambiguity is not present… so the writers make the addition of Sam’s addiction. Fandom accepts this as evidence of Sam’s powers and the demon blood being an inherently corruptive force. With that in mind, it cannot be overstated that the traits Sam is demonized for (uncharacteristic pessimism and secrecy, namely) are the psychological effects of any addiction—not of the fictional substance of demon blood itself—and a logical step to avoiding punishment at the hands of the narrative’s moral authority/point-of-view character, Dean. The villainization of Sam relies heavily on ableist messages we’ve internalized from The War on Drugs (the belief that addicts deserve whatever suffering befalls them due to their perceived moral failings, as well as the idea that any loss of autonomy is justified). As effective as this is in carrying the message that Sam’s powers are evil, there’s one more problem: Sam’s addiction is not actually evil, and it does not affect the morality of Sam’s powers, which he still uses to save people’s lives. The addiction and the powers are two distinct issues, defined by some key differences: the former is an issue that arose as a result of desperation and manipulation, whereas the latter is something he was born with and ostracized for. These issues do not exist in their own bubbles, of course, as it becomes apparent that Sam’s feelings about his powers inform his decisions which lead to his addiction. However, it remains true that, objectively speaking, there is nothing solid in the narrative to dismiss Sam’s powers as anything but a neutral force to be called on as it suits him. They are little more than a conduit for the good he wants to bring into the world. This failure to write a convincing villain arc for Sam comes from the writers’ dependence on a Reagan-era cultural bias. In this instance, by accepting the narrative as a reliable judge of morality, we perpetrate those same biases presented when we should be criticizing them.

As for the additional insult of dismissing Sam’s story as a queer allegory based on the assumption of the author’s moral authority? Ultimately, the narrative is anti-queer. Looking at seasons 1-5 specifically, good queer characters (Lily, Corbett) meet tragic ends. Other queer characters (Lucifer, Crowley, potentially Meg) are sexually threatening villains. The only other non-straight characters would be The Chief from the BDSM club and the Sam/Dean cosplayers, who are not villains but are still portrayed as something to be gawked at. It’s no jump to believe that the writers would observe a story which resonates with queer people (even unintentionally) and decide to antagonize it as well. After all, running away from your family, turning down an idealized hyper-masculine all-American lifestyle, embracing the ways in which you are different and othered? That does not conform to the conservative values which are represented through John, Dean, and hunting. However, those are the values which the narrative is dependent on. After all, what is left of the story if blood does not bind a family, what is left if hunting is not a clear pathway to moral righteousness? The show is not equipped to dissect these notions because its premise is dependent on maintaining them.

While the story does attempt to offer differing viewpoints—both the idea that you must remain loyal to your immediate (nuclear) family and the opposing concept of found family—it lands on a strange median, wherein a character like Sam is condemned for leaving his blood family, but can extend that title to non-relatives (at the blood family’s behest, otherwise it is also condemned *cough Amelia cough Jess cough*). Basically, the conservative values take precedence while shallowly humoring the liberal ones.

The one consistent takeaway from this is that the narrative’s condemnation is subjective: it does not mean that the queer allegory (Sam’s backstory and powers, in this instance) is as evil as they want us to believe. They take a concept which they believe is evil and try to depict it as such. We are allowed to disagree with the idea that it should be depicted as evil. Our disagreement with the allegory the writers push is as analytical as it is personal.

Furthermore, it means the writers believe in innate evil. This conflicts with more liberal beliefs and instead coincides with ideas like the original sin (misogyny in Christianity) and other allegories which paint any group of people as inherently immoral. We are able to apply our own experience and beliefs to determine if we agree with their stance, and if a fan is left-leaning, they are less likely to approach a story which depicts someone challenging the status quo through his birth as anything but sympathetic. Leftist values typically rely on compassion for those who are othered, and Sam is no exception. In other words, the writers create a series of events, but use their point-of-view character* to portray those events as evil. But we see that same series of events and interpret them as neutral or good.

*The conduit for the audience (Dean) is also the conduit for the writers’ own morals, which is part of why the audience unthinkingly believes his unreliable narration: we are dependent on it. His is the main POV through which we learn the story. Sam’s secrets are kept from the audience because they are kept from Dean. If Dean takes issue with Sam’s secrets, even if the secret-keeping is justifiable, the audience is encouraged to sympathize with Dean over Sam. This does not mean Dean’s responses are always appropriate or nuanced: only that they are given more attention and sympathy than Sam’s reasoning.