I don't care what anyone says, I WILL NEVER agree with the decision to have Steven "With You 'Til The End Of The Line" Rogers ABANDON his best friend to go with Peggy. Fuck Marvel for that, respectfully.

seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from China

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from China

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from China

seen from Malaysia

seen from Israel

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from China
I don't care what anyone says, I WILL NEVER agree with the decision to have Steven "With You 'Til The End Of The Line" Rogers ABANDON his best friend to go with Peggy. Fuck Marvel for that, respectfully.
how to tag😱
i cant finish this because im out of motivation but here have a chris x barnes wip
Damn bear.
18+ Minors DNI
Sgt Barnes wins you a bear at a carnival. What he doesn’t expect nor like is when you give it more attention, Bucky shows you that he’s better than the bear.
Pairing: Bucky x Reader
Warnings: Jealous Buck, Public Oral, Stuffed bear being abused at the end (you’ll see), filthy Bucky, if there are any more let me know
Sgt. Robert "Bob" Barnes | Platoon (1986)
Me and the girls
😭😭😭
Wild take: Barnes is the Good guy (p.2)
okay so yall can review my p.1 , i've refined some stuffs, in p.1 i've provided evidence of how he actually has animal regression (which is Shellshock, i just didn't know the literal name)
ANYWAYS in this post i will tell ya what it means if hypothetically Barnes has shellshock (which is proven in p.1) and how it shows more about his character
First, Barnes is the Good guy
And i dont define good guy as a guy who doesnt do harm, but rather SPECIFICALLY a guy who has good intentions in the first place
In psychology we have HSP (hyper-sensitive people), it's about people who's being affected the most [0]
Barnes is a protective guy, behind all of his decisions is [1]"how can i protect my guys"and [2]"how can i give them justices they deserved"
He knows the trade off, in order to save your troops you have to prioritise your people over others regardless of how inhumane or unethical it might cost, i truly believed when he shot those villagers he didnt do it to satisfy his ego or showing off his dark desires (unlike bunny who killed the villagers for fun)
Dude did it because he was in rage [0][2], he suspected them for killing his guy- Manny, before he even got there [2]
"BUT it's still fucked up, and he cant excuse the undone harm" that's what others will tell me, and that's true! But still doesn't change anything, that's because he internalised the toxicity in war [0], specifically toxic masculinities (power and dominance), it's not his core character
if he was naturally a bad guy he wouldnt just do the killing he woulda joined the r*pe his soldiers did to that villagers, why he only joined the killings? because no matter how fucked up his internalisation is, his core character remains as being protective
You need to change your biased perspective on the exaggerating scenes (ex, rape scene, genocide), to see that EVEN IF the film director want to make it clear that core IS evil, in other perspective it shows Barnes is unbiased, he doesn't care about gender/race/class he only cares about getting the jobs done.
For evidence, given the context of the majority soldiers in REAL LIFE and the given characteristics Oliver Stone gave, he would have likely to directly rape/be physically abusive/racist to his soldiers, but he havent done any of that, he only threw curses (it's part of the "Grunt" culture -> it's only an echo chamber and adaption, NOT his core character) so you cant tell me that whatever he does aint intented to protect his guys [1][2] .
"Devouring Mother", this is the literal term describes Barnes as a character, selfless but when the "children" (refers to Elias, Chris) get independent the "mom" (Barnes) freaks out!
That's why he lashed out he killed Elias and almost did the same to Chris, he wanted them to stay under his control so he could protect them [1], doesn't necessarily it's bad, in most cases that's the Best scenarios.
You don't work with people who threaten the machine without the goal to improve the system, Barnes and Elias have ideological clashes
-> some might argue "clashes are important for changes"
YEA changes are good for fixing systems, BUT in the warzone you must prioritize URGENCY, you cannot let the system being threatened for any minute to check if the challenges were necessary/ethically, right/wrong, you must stabilize the system first, that's why Barnes killed Elias in the first place, in order to save the majority you need trade-offs. It still stems from his protectiveness (Devouring Mother) -> beneficial for his troops.
This is not about denying his vicious decisions but rather the roots of them and the unexpected outcomes, it shows that you cant be a "good guy" in all scenarios WITH the vague definition of what a good guy is
Back to Shellshock's argument, Barnes, it's proven he's a HSP [0] and Shellshock, i firmly believe that it's the RESULT of what the war has done to him, he's potentially the one being affected deeply to the point of having Shellshock, he is the victim, focusing purely on demonizing him is victim-blaming.
Bluntly speaking, the plot aims to demonise his character but as the audiences, y'all should see the layers underneath.
There is NOTHING absolute, you can have the good inside the bad and vice versa.
Maybe it's the beauty of it when the dark overshadows the good so well once you have a taste of it you'll realise how exquisite it truly is.