I said him owning it is better than a laege company owning it

And I asked you why, at which point you claimed you didn’t say that.

You can reason with a guy, given that he’s reasonable, but you have no chance with a company.

I see no reason to think you have any better chance reasoning with this guy.

And his price is probably lower than that of a company

I see zero reason to believe he’s renting for below market rate. Individual owners don’t general charge lower rent than companies, so your assertion that he “probably” does is completely baseless.

Why lie?

You staying the owner is a billion times better than some company or land developer buying it

Why is that better? A parasite owns it either way.

Oh good, you’re at the point of outright lying: your source doesn’t contain your claim, so I can only conclude you’re just deliberately being dishonest to waste people’s time or in the hope they wouldn’t check.

Western sinophobes continue to demonstrate that they start with their conclusions and then that whatever bad faith tricks are needed to try to justify them.

“I don’t want to work the 996 work week” is the epitome of working class speech, whereas supporting it is corporate speech. China chose to censor it.

Let’s see your evidence of that

It’s a well known phenomenon that people raised under authoritarian systems with heavy thoughts control will frequently answer the “socially acceptable” thing even on anonymous polls – this is what the state has trained them from birth to do. Another effect that explains the incongruity in e.g. a larger proportion of Chinese respondents thinking their system is democratic than French respondents is that words like democracy do not mean the same thing in China as they do in France.

“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

• Michael Parenti

No. They don’t

Tankie is a pejorative for communists that gets unilaterally branded onto people by anti-communists. I’m happy to declare people using it unironically to be fascists, and if you don’t agree with that, well, tough luck, you were the one who started throwing around snarl words

Ok fascist

Ok

Yes

Not this bullshit again