Okay, sorry, but I have like five different abandoned drafts sitting on my computer about this exact thing all written prior to seeing this gifset, and this gifset is perfect, and I am just going to have to give up on getting them Just Right because I want this out of my head (and out of my drafts folder).
So this is fascinating to me because what’s going here is basically that Henry had this idea of what his son was like when he was a kid, and he’s projected it forward in time to come up with an idea of what John would have been like as an adult if a bunch of bad shit hadn’t happened to him. (Supernatural bad shit like Mary being killed and mundane bad shit like being in the Vietnam War.) And I have a longstanding theory, based (historically) on not very much, that part of why John was an asshole to Sam in the particular way he was is that he saw himself in Sam. But not the part of himself he felt like he needed: not the terrifying hunter who knew five different ways to kill you with his bare hands and raised his kids as child soldiers. I think John would have seen Sam as being like him in the ways he’d decided were at best not very useful and at worst a liability: I think he would’ve seen a fairly bookish, introverted, curious kid who wanted to read and learn things and go to school and live a monster-free life, and it would have gotten under his skin in a way nothing Dean did could have because it looked a lot like what he was trying to kill in himself.
Because I don’t think John was like that at first. In the episodes where the boys go back in time and work with him and Mary, he seems out of his depth, if not actually frightened of what’s going on. The young John we see in those episodes is a much calmer, gentler man than the boys knew as their father. But he’s also really eager to prove himself, and I can imagine that need to seem competent and unflappable kind of crowding out everything else about him. Refocusing it, at least. Because older John Winchester is studious and bookish and interested in/good at research, but it’s secondary, it’s not the most important thing about him. Or maybe I should say it’s important, but only when it’s in service to the Hunting Things part of the family business – seeking knowledge and trying to understand and catalog the world is not, on its own, a worthwhile activity for John. But I don’t think that’s because he wasn’t good at it, or didn’t have the impulse to read and research and learn about his world for its own sake. I think a series of fucked up things happened to him (starting, arguably, with his dad disappearing without warning or explanation when he was a kid) that taught him to devalue that part of himself, and so when he saw it in his son, instead of doing the well-adjusted-parent thing and encouraging Sam to pursue his skills and interests, he just saw a thing he’d spent a bunch of time trying not to be, and hated it.
…Not, in case it needs saying (it shouldn’t need saying, but I have no more faith on this particular point) that a complicated and difficult personal history excuses abuse. John’s a terrible dad. This is very clearly a show about fucked up family dynamics and cycles of violence and abuse (with occasional monster guest stars). But also, this is a show about fucked up family dynamics and cycles of violence that, right now, is actually talking about family dynamics and cycles of violence.
And the really ironic thing is, all those qualities John didn’t think Sam possessed are actually there, the ruthlessness and focus and the ability to pursue a goal to the end of the earth. Or else he never would have gotten a full ride to Stanford.
also, i see supernatural as a sort of progression in which dean starts out trying to emulate john really really hard….while Sam seems like the compassionate, curious, questioning one. and then it turns out that when Jess dies, Sam practically turns into John, while Dean is the voice of reason, the protective one, the voice of compassion – the one who is most like mary in trying to protect the family. you know, maybe that explains why John was such a dick to Dean – he saw so much of Mary in Dean, in his kindness and compassion, and he hated it because it hurt. wow, eureka. that explains a lot. imma gonna go cry now.
“British charts in the 00’s were dominated by female artists. Musicians like Adele, Amy Winehouse and Lily Allen created a subculture with the youth, which bled into fashion, attitude and taste. This specific sound made a mark in British music history, and for female artists in the UK.”
valerie (mark ronson revisit)– amy winehouse | 9 to 5– lady sovereign | smile– lily allen | katy on a mission– katy b | mercy– duffy | american boy– estelle | love machine– girls aloud | bulletproof– la roux | that’s not my name– the ting tings | starry eyed– ellie goulding | make you feel my love– adele | if i can’t dance– sophie ellis bextor | suddenly i see– kt tunstall | these words– natasha bedingfield | sweet about me– gabriella cilmi | new in town– little boots | bleeding love– leona lewis | call your girlfriend– robyn | superstar– jamelia | push the button– the sugababes | mama do (uh oh, uh oh)– pixie lott | foundations– kate nash
I’m about 90% sure the economy is never gonna “improve”
this is capitalism in it’s final form
this is it honey
except, you know, those companies that do a charitable thing for every thing they sell
that’s kinda new and interesting. benevolent capitalism
lmao
Pay attention, class: This is what it looks like when one is unwilling to consider new information.
It’s not new information, though. It’s misinformation.
First, it’s not that new.
Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”
The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.
Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.
That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.
(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)
The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.
Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?
Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.
But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.
So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?
Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.
“Charity” is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. “Charity” is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.
On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.
Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.
So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.
Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.
But there’s nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone who’s starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.
This is one of the best anti-capitalist posts on the entire site.
kototyph 
