Source: millennialsargueback

y’all: peter was able to stop bucky’s fist in civil war bc bucky heard peter’s voice, realized he was a child, then weakened his punch bc he was so worried about hurting a child uwu

me, eating pistachios: y’all know peter can canonically lift up to 75 tons, right. y’all know bucky’s fist is easy as hell for peter to block, right. y’all know bucky didn’t know shit about peter being a child and was just shocked that someone was able to so easily block his punch, right. y’all know that, right.

social media feeds

letsplaysocialjustice:

kiriamaya:

solarpunkarchivist:

Unbiased journalism is not pretending both sides are equally valid. Unbiased journalism is reporting the facts even if those facts include that one side is irredeemably awful. False neutrality is propaganda.

Repeated for emphasis: False neutrality is propaganda.

if 99 experts say one thing, and 1 expert says another, presenting both sides as equal is misinformation

I didn’t know

thealextheshipper:

I’ve seen the argument made multiple times that Steve did not know it was Bucky that physically killed the Starks. Assuming that is true, assuming all Steve knew after seeing Zola was that Hydra had killed the Starks. Why is that better?

Why do people think that this is a good argument to make in defense of Steve? If Steve didn’t know Bucky was involved then he literally had no reason to keep this information from Tony. And he still knew that the Starks deaths were actually murders. He still lied about that. It doesn’t change any of the things Steve did wrong, it just takes away one of his reasons for hiding the truth.

Either Steve knew it was Bucky and lied about it in order to protect Bucky, or Steve didn’t know it was Bucky and lied about it anyways. Either way he knew Hydra was involved in the Stark’s deaths and choose not to speak up.