Alright, I mean this in the kindest way possible, you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't have the time required nor the desire to rectify that, so I'll simply say that you've spent a regrettable amount of time here embarrassing yourself in front of people who know substantially more about history and politics than you do. Trying to debate communists on those subjects at all is generally a bad idea, but to do so armed only with natsec PR and mystery statistics is something else.

Israel isn't a real state, it's a neoimperialist attack dog that occasionally forgets its leash. It's theft and murder incarnate. If you really consider historical context to be important and still hold to a two-state solution as the ideal outcome, then I'm sorry, you're lacking a great deal of historical context and haven't the right to invoke it here.

Seriously. I recently read a paper somebody linked here which went over Russian artillery doctrine. Long and the short is that the Russians can get effective artillery fires on a target inside of three minutes under optimal conditions, particularly when using UAVs for spotting. They've also gotten into the habit of attaching mortars to infantry units and forming them up into mortar teams ad hoc, giving such units some quite potent local indirect fire support.

Hell, I dunno. This sort of thing got through to me eventually, maybe I'm hoping I can change minds myself.

That's not what he meant and you know it. He's making light of an obvious double standard regarding the standing in which we hold two sources with obvious national biases.

My pleasure. I hope it wasn't too rambling, my worst habit is to say in ten words what can be said with five.

If you'd like to know our reasons for doing that (or anyway, my reasons), they're twofold. First, even with the rise of China and the seeming return of global multipolarity, western countries continue to dominate world affairs, militarily and economically. It's simply a matter of scale; when they act up, it's likely to effect the lives of millions of people around the world, directly or otherwise. Second, most of us are ourselves westerners, and of those I'm betting most of us are from the the US. As citizens of these places, our first responsibility is to point out our own nations' crimes, both because of their widespread influence, and because of our proximity to them.

There's also the matter of communist countries being the subject of a truly absurd amount of western propaganda. We feel the need to push back against certain narratives about the supposed crimes of communist countries because we know many of them to be exaggerated, misrepresented, and at times outright fabricated. Most of us are close students of history, some of us like myself are even academic historians, and it can be frustrating to provide reams of evidence for our claims (or more often, counter-claims) and be met with accusations of whataboutism, rather than earnest engagement. It's why so many of us are quick to assume that the pushback we get is in bad faith, because it quite often is.

But anyway, I'm getting off track. Very few of us, I find, are unwilling to acknowledge the flaws, missteps, and yes, even crimes of actually existing socialist states, when they are well evidenced. For instance, I doubt many of us would defend the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, but we're equally unwilling to accept the Holodomor as an example of deliberate ethnic genocide because the common narratives surrounding it rely on fabricated numbers, misrepresentations of Soviet state policy, and Nazi propaganda, to say nothing of their denial of professional historical consensus.

For real though. It's hardly difficult to find a bunch of leftists arguing about China lmao

If you payed closer attention you'd notice that we have a range of opinions on China, and we don't all think everything they do is correct. That's what the term critical support means. It's a recognition that even socialist states are imperfect, as the nation state as an institution is fundamentally imperfect and will always and everywhere undermine freedom to some degree. But a state which is undergoing the transition to socialism, particularly one that's putting themselves in a position to undermine US imperial hegemony like China is, is well worth supporting, even as we acknowledge its flaws and contradictions.

What none of us will ever tolerate are accusations of genocide with one discredited religious fanatic as the source, or racist insults being hurled at their head of state, both things I've seen numerous times from users from other instances.

And did you at any point ask yourself why they own these things? Why Netflix the corporate entity owns media it did not produce while stiffing the people that did out of just compensation? Or how that information slightly complicates the otherwise simple nature of property and theft?

The only mental gymnast here is you bud. The simple fact is, labor creates value, and Netflix has no part in that. I doubt they even put up any of their own capital in producing these shows.

What's legal is not necessarily what's moral, and there's nothing immoral about freely procuring an infinitely replicable digital product. If anything, it's immoral to enclose upon them and charge rents for them. No better than landlords, the big streaming companies, save for the fact that entertainment isn't vital for living.

Not so. The people who actually produce media (actors, writers, production crew) rarely if ever see fair compensation or residuals for their work. The only people you're stealing from are the people who already stole the value that the actual creators generated, i.e. the studio. And in my opinion, you can't rob a thief anyway.

This logic doesn't hold with smaller and/or independent projects, which even the saltiest pirates acknowledge should be payed for in the usual manner.

Edit: Your point about compensation doesn't even have a completely factual basis. Numerous scientific and medical advancements throughout history have been produced without compensation, often because their creators intentionally declined to profit from them. Sir Banting is a favored example around here; he was one of the first to synthesize insulin, and he and his colleagues opted not to patent it so that it would be as widely available as possible.

Try not being such a little panzy instead

You've got nothing here dude, take the L. You're clearly ignorant of what AES actually looks like historically, how it's formed, how it responds to pressures and challenges. You're just going by this vague, largely aesthetic conception of what socialism looks like, that you probably got from some youtuber that call themself a libertarian socialist or some other such incoherent shit, and you're castigating a real socialist governmemt attempting to reckon with the real world because they haven't waved a magic wand and enacted your asinine Disneyland version of socialism.