Tumgik
#anti accords
honestly steve deserved to be a little meaner in civil war
“steve you have to sign the accords”
“oh right i totally should sign my rights away to a government who i exposed to have been infiltrated by nazis for DECADES. i’m sure nothing bad will happen if i do that”
“i should let the government dictate my life when all i’ve ever done is save the world by going AGAINST the government. sounds like a great plan”
like t0ny stans love to say he was being horribly selfish and mean in civil war, which he… wasn’t, but i think he should have been
1K notes · View notes
lizisthecoolest · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
basically a summary of civil war tony
287 notes · View notes
Text
In response : Warning, lots of facts.
The Accords were most definitely created to take away rights. I don't know how whether or not someone is American has anything to do with their view point. How is the removal of due process not an infringement or the removal of basic human rights? So because they were made by the UN, they're safe? Didn’t the government try to nuke New York? Weren’t they the same ones with Hydra running around inside? The minute you start targeting a specific group of people, it's a problem.
Tumblr media
Let me just break down the Accords real quick:
Any enhanced individuals who agree to sign must register with the United Nations and provide biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA samples. Those with secret identities must reveal their legal names and true identities to the United Nations. Those with innate powers must submit to a power analysis, which will categorize their threat level and determine potential health risks. Those with innate powers must also wear tracking bracelets at all times.
Fingerprints? DNA? Tracking bracelets? How invasive.
I’m sure this can fall under the fourth amendment (the right of the people of the US to feel secure in their homes, and of possessions, without fear of ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’).
Any enhanced individuals who sign are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own unless they are first given clearance by either that country's government or by a United Nations subcommittee. Governments are forbidden from deploying enhanced individuals outside of their own national borders unless those individuals are given clearance as described above. The same rule also applies to non-government organizations that operate on a global scale (including S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers).
Any enhanced individuals who do not sign will not be allowed to take part in any police, military, or espionage activities, or to otherwise participate in any national or international conflict, even in their own country. As a corollary, they will not be allowed to participate in any active missions undertaken by private or governmental law enforcement/military/intelligence organizations (such as S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers).
Sounds like coercion to me.....which is illegal.
Any enhanced individuals who use their powers to break the law (including those who take part in extralegal vigilante activities), or are otherwise deemed to be a threat to the safety of the general public, may be detained indefinitely without trial. If an enhanced individual violates the Accords, or obstructs the actions of those enforcing the Accords, they may likewise be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial.
So, what exactly is defined as an extralegal activity? What if someone has it out for an enhanced individual and turns them in? Then what? This is a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment (The right of all citizens of the US to a speedy and fair trial)
It’s also in direct violation of the eighth amendment (A ban on extreme punishments for crime, with a focus on ‘cruel and unusual’, and on excessive fines or bail.
The use of technology to bestow individuals with innate superhuman capabilities is strictly regulated, as is the use and distribution of highly advanced technology (such as Asgardian and Chitauri weaponry). The creation of self-aware artificial intelligence is completely prohibited.
The Avengers will no longer be a private organization and will operate under the supervision of the United Nations.
Tell me again how this isn’t a violation of human rights?
Just because someone is part of the majority, doesn't mean they're correct, some of ya’ll are way too old to not know that 🥴 Steve actually did read the Accords, in fact, in the movie, he's the only one who was shown to be reading them. Look below. I guess he’s reading the dinner menu from Olive Garden or something 
Tumblr media
Tony Stark was in charge of that company from age 21. He was responsible for what was happening and he should've been paying better attention to what was going on in HIS company. Why do Tony Stans feel the need to defend some forty year old man who should know better?
He DID manufacture weapons. He admitted to that over the course of his films, to claim otherwise is willfully ignorant. 
War Profiteer - Any person or organization that derives profit from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war. Hmm 🧐, it seems as if you're the one who doesn't actually know the definition of the words. Because that's EXACTLY what Tony did. I mean, did you forget the big 'ol Stark Industries logo on the bomb that nearly killed him? On the one that killed Wanda’s parents? How do you think he made his fortune? 
Tumblr media
He never made fun of anyone's trauma? He was the same dude that called Steve 'Capsicle', Bucky the 'Manchurian Candidate', he tried to get Bruce to turn into the Hulk on the helicarrier... And he didn't create BARF, Quentin Beck did and he stole his work. Once again, explained in the movies.
Tumblr media
Ultron was from the framework of Tony's mind, again, explained in the movies. The movie also explained that Thor allowed him to STUDY the mind stone, not USE it. Tony went behind everyone's back and coerced Bruce into helping him create Ultron. What did Thor and Wanda have to do with that? He's a grown man, he's responsible for his own actions. It upsets a lot of Tony Stans, but he was wrong. Get over it.
Are you a troll? Because none of what you're saying makes any sense. You know what they say about intentions? Tony was wrong to create Ultron. We're all willingly blind, but you're the one who isn't using facts.
Tumblr media
Please do tell what laws Steve Rogers broke 🙄. Steve was an actual Captain as evident on his military uniform and how was he not a soldier? Because YOU said so? Dude fought in WWII and now he's not a soldier? Ha! Him refusing to sign the Accords was noble and in the end, the correct decision, there's nothing arrogant about protecting the little guy. I guess Peter Parker is arrogant, too. And by the way, the same Accords that you're backing, guess who actually broke them? Your golden boy, Tony ☺️ He wasn’t even supposed to be in Siberia, they should’ve thrown him in the Raft and ate the key. He's never been about accountability. Only arrogance, selfishness and greed. It's funny you say that Cap is the reason other countries fear the US, but actually, it's the billionaire, war profiteer that went over to Middle East and started murdering people because he wanted to. Oops. When Thanos came along, who did the people want help from? The same Avengers they wanted arrested two years prior.
Tumblr media
Tell me, if he was so about accountability? Why isn’t he in prison? Why did he create these glasses (as seen above)? Why did he shoot Sam unprovoked? Why did he continue to make weapons? Why did he sit around for five years and do nothing? Why did he bring Peter to Germany? Why did he try to kill Bucky instead of finding Hydra? Why did he push his company off on Pepper? Why didn’t he call Steve before it was too late? Why did he expose Clint’s family?
Don’t come on here and swear at me and disrespect me. I don’t like it, it’s not cute. I am more than willing to have a discussion as long as it remains respectful.
339 notes · View notes
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Not mine, but an interesting read.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with the first part. To me what the writers and the Russos say is that they wanted to portray both teams as right, with their own reasoning to either sign or reject the Accords, and then let the audience decide which team they agreed with.
But I'm afraid that's the first and biggest mistake they made because one team is quite obviously on the wrong and the other is quite obviously on the right. For the very little time they dedicated to the Accords it became clear right away that they were a huge violation of civil rights, there's no middle ground here, it's impossible. If they wanted to portray both teams as somewhat in the right they should have changed the Accords.
I really like this line though: "It is baffling to do a CW plotline that unironically has Stark suggest we all trust the government coming off TWS where we learned the government is corrupt and crawling with Hydra".
Funnily enough, even though I absolutely love and adore TWS, that's one thing that they chickened out on and it's a huge shame: the bad guys were Hydra, okay, but what about other people who weren't working for them, who didn't know who they were, but agreed with them? Why not acknowledge them? We have something that somewhat addresses that when all that people are getting ready to get the helicarrers on the air: are we sure only Hydra knew about the weapons? The targets? Nobody else did, nobody asked any questions?
Again, part of the discussion about the Accords in CW could have addressed that.
I disagree though that Stark starts the movie thinking the Accords are right. He didn't give a damn about the Accords, he just wanted to let go of the guilt and to be allowed to do whatever he wanted and blame it on someone else whenever something went wrong. He was fully aware his privilege and wealth would get him out of anything, it's what had happened until that point: he never faced any consequences for his actions and he got away with absolutely everything he did time and time again. He knew others wouldn't be so lucky under the Accords but... as long as it's not him he doesn't care.
66 notes · View notes
therese-lokidottir · 3 months
Note
I definitely disappointed that how MCU made and handle civil war. In comics are more complex that both sides actually have point and make you question what is meaning of save , is that save as in physically or save morally (inside) .
Also I never understand how they made sokovia accord while they never really brought what happened in sokovia and they not showing it sokovia peoples reaction, I meant Wanda is there but no one asking her. ( I know she kind have responsibility about Ultron).
Also I finding its so weird we never see government or peoples from sokovia, Johannesburg and (I forget the country name) . Ross want guilty trip them but only showing the videos and not showing the government self. We never know what they think. Ross only saying g 117 country signs sokovia accord but whick ones did that? They never tell
I do not like the original comic. Cap is an unreasonable douche and Tony is basically a super villain. While the sokovia accords are not something I agree with, and I would say are a little pointless in the MCU, They're never properly explain. But I will say sorta get the idea and Tony motivation makes sense and was set up. The registration act on the other hand is contradictory and bad, makes no sense and reason for Tony being the one leading the side is contrived as hell and dumb.
I hate the comic, it led to bad things both in-universe and the trend of event comics of having heroes fight each other for stupid reasons. A super villain blew up part of city, that means everyone with any kind of power has to registration with SHIELD, even if they live a civilian life. It's questionable if the accords violate amendment right, but the registration act straight up does.
The thing that makes the sokovia accords pointless in the MCU is the Avengers always had some kind of government oversight and all their identities are known. So, the thing is that it wouldn't be the Avengers over stepping boundaries as would be SHIELD and the government.
Sokovia was because of Ultron and ultron was because of Tony messing with the cosmic rock he shouldn't have been messing with. The Avengers made a great effort to evacuate the city. So, what are the accords supposed to do in situations like that?
I've said this before, CA:CW is not about the accords. It is about the personal conflict between Tony and Steve that happens because of Bucky past and being framed by Zemo. It could be the exacts conflict with the accord plot removed.
5 notes · View notes
lovl3igh · 16 days
Text
"according to the law aegon should be the king" according to the law aegon should have been castrated and sent to the wall
172 notes · View notes
gummi-ships · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Kingdom Hearts II Official Strategy Guide (Source) Sora's Forms
170 notes · View notes
ircn-dad · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
gifs not mine
I saw on the original post of these gifts the reblogs and...wow. Not the people saying "Tony reacts like that because that's what Steve tried to tell him before!! #antitonystark"
What actually Steve said: This job... We try to save as many people as we can. Sometimes that doesn't mean everybody, but, if we can't find a way to live with that, Next time... maybe nobody can be saved.
Peter is basically saying he can't live with the knowledge of not helping everyone, Steve is saying that they have to learn to live with it because it's better saving someone than not saving everyone.
While I think Steve is not an asshole and doesn't like when someone dies, I also think that Peter and Steve are not guided by the same morality. Steve accept the fact a lot of people die with his job, Peter and Tony don't. They can't accept the fact they cannot save everyone, they feel responsible for every damage they cause. That's why Tony had that look, because he related to Peter's words. That's literally the point of why he wanted the accords.
Tony blames him self and not just for Ultron. He blamed himself since IM1. When he said "I just finally know what I have to do, and i know in my heart that's it's right" and right before that he mentioned the soldiers who were killed by his weapons, even if it wasn't directly his fault. You can se the parallels between the two of them, they both blames themselves for everything.
Were the accords bad? Yes. Were they needed? Also, Yes. The idea of the accords was good because if I was one of the civilians like Zemo I would want them, and you cannot say otherwise if you were in their place.
So yes, I still think Peter would have been on Team Iron Man anyway because Peter would never turn his back on the civilians (He sacrifices his identity for them, he sacrificed his whole life for them). Even if he didn't like the accords, he would have accepted them and willed to change them. Peter and Tony have the same guilt, the same morale. Tony choose Peter because he saw himself in him, and Peter found comfort in Tony because he was the only one who understood him (Like confirmed in IW novelization).
Tony was the best person to mentor him.
1K notes · View notes
al-selfships · 9 months
Text
"Yaoi/yuri fetishizes gay men/lesbians! You should read Boys'/Girls' Love instead!"
Yeah, sorry to be the one telling you this but they're literally the same fucking thing.
341 notes · View notes
aleksanderscult · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media
78 notes · View notes
captainwidowspring · 8 months
Text
You know, I just had a thought about the Accords' introduction scene. When Steve says to Ross, "Okay, that's enough" and Ross nods to his assistant to turn the propaganda off: the scene is framed like the presentation would have continued if Steve had said nothing, but if he had kept quiet, what else would have been shown? Johannesburg, where there were plenty of entirely preventable civilian casualties caused solely by Tony's recklessness, which is not the other Avengers' fault? The final battle of The Dark World, which actually featured civilians being stupid, and filming Thor's battle instead of running away?
This ridiculous framing just seems like a way for the movie to cover up how little material it actually had to try to make the Avengers seem blameworthy. I mean, none of the damage that was shown was easily avoidable, and as it was Civil War had to scrape so hard to find propaganda for the presentation that it literally had to invent civilian casualties; there is no way that civilians would have ignored three huge helicarriers gradually destroying each other long enough for the helicarriers to be able to harm them. The film acting like there was much more for Ross to show is really quite ridiculous.
It is perfectly believable that Steve would be concerned about Wanda's mental health, and it's not a bad thing that he spoke up for her, but it's clear that Civil War had an ulterior motive here. That line was only there to spare Ross from having to say, "That's it" at the end of the propaganda-presentation, because such a thing would have risked drawing attention to the sheer paucity of any material that could be used to denounce the Avengers. It's a fairly small thing, but such intentional effort goes to show just how invested Civil War was in trying to support Team Iron Man. There is no way it would have been able to be a both-sides movie otherwise, for Team Cap is far too clearly in the right.
183 notes · View notes
i-love-tony-stark · 8 months
Text
If CA:CW did nothing else it proved that people are a lot more susceptible to propaganda than u think
163 notes · View notes
bad-wolf-circe · 4 months
Text
actually i'm anti aesthetic. actually i don't believe in living my life according to the mandate of the same 500 pinterest images. actually i think my life has some meaning, some shades of color to it, outside of a set of rules and stereotypes that are presented to me in a tidy little package. actually, maybe i'm the ugly color gradient and that means there is nuance to the way i live. actually, i don't want to JUST be a witch, or a clean girl, or a mythic bitch, or the feminine mystique, or a coastal grandmother, or a cottagecore lover of women, or punk, or rock, or death metal, or goth. actually being a girl hasn't been anything like what's been shown to me -- and so i will be a girl on my own terms. actually i think being a girl has been nothing like the movies or the moodboards. actually FUCK your moodboards and your makeup too. actually i'm nothingandeverythingcore. actually im alive im alive im alive and that requires no aestheticization. it requires no sanitization of existence. actually life is most beautiful when it is diverse. actually i will try everything and know everything and nothing will stop me; my life will be varied and beautiful and messy and chaotic and occasionally organized and exactly the way it ought to be, you FUCKERS.
144 notes · View notes
Note
I don't think you've been asked- but what's your opinion on the accords?
I briefly touched on the accords here, in my post where I hate on Steve.
Now, I have to give the caveat of "in the MCU films" as that's what I'm familiar with and if I don't someone will invariably come to my comments and say, "But Muffin, you didn't read the comics, in the comics this made sense, in the comics this is different".
So, we're talking about the films.
In the films, they were a completely reasonable and legitimate international law that Steve and friends look... not quite bad but short sighted for fighting against it so hard.
Given what we're told in the film, this is an international agreement, agreed upon by pretty much every country, which is just "superhumans who play vigilante should be held accountable to international laws and should not be directing themselves". That's it.
The laws in and of themselves are not only not an inherently bad idea but probably a good one. The reason it seems they may not be justified is that, thus far (sans Tony in Age of Ultron when he made an evil AI and nearly destroyed a country), is that the Avengers as we've seen them in the film have reacted reasonably to threats and were unquestionably the good guys. They never threw their weight around, abused their powers, didn't seem to be picking and choosing of who they would save and who they wouldn't, and worked fairly cohesively as a relatively independent organization. This makes it seem more like a "Tony" problem in that he's the one who fucked up big time and should have had oversight.
The problem is, that's right, it is a Tony problem, Tony was an Avenger who had no oversight and was deciding where and how he should use his talents with no one to say "no", and there could be another Tony in the future and maybe someone should be able to check in and say when the Avengers should and should not be going.
Now, if it was just MCUsa, e.g. Ross who we know is a baddie, that'd be quite bad as the avengers can be sent out as tools of war between whatever countries except that we're told it's explicitly an international agreement and that it's internationally decided on when and where the Avengers should be deployed. In terms of politics, that's about as good as you're going to get, and a lot more justified than "six/seven people with mostly the same background decide when and where they should go without necessarily having a full understanding of the situation/place they're being deployed into".
Oversight is not a bad thing.
And the film completely and utterly fails to bring up any legitimate and convincing arguments against it. Arguments seem to boil down to: we as an audience know from general Marvel things and The Hulk that Ross is very bad and him being for the accords is bad, Tony was the bad guy in the last film and is clearly letting his fear get to him here and is afraid of making his own decisions, Bucky, and we know the Avengers are good and always will be.
It's just.. yeah, what else is there to say?
37 notes · View notes
lainalit · 12 days
Text
Tumblr media
29 notes · View notes