I’m generally pretty generous when it comes to realizing I’m hearing one side of the story and that it’s always much more complicated.

But, dear God man, if what he says is even remotely true and she was hovering over him while he was sleeping, and then when he awoke she asked if he would murder someone for her, and then what he plans to do with their cat after the murder, that’s not just being “genuinely afraid” and acting irrationally when in the middle of being very afraid.

She might be suffering from some anxiety that she needs to address, but let’s not play down how disturbing this is…especially because he called it “the usual.”

Holy shit you gotta love the Internet with people, based on this one story, thinking it makes sense to warn that she might be planning a murder suicide. Lol wow.

You know, the usual.

I’m sure it’s been said already, but there is nothing usual about what you described. She sounds unstable and you should reconsider this relationship.

But to be pedantic, nothing about what you described sounds even remotely like gaslighting.

I’m sure you’ll be able to provide me with a sound study confirming this.

According to hexbear you would have to have some deranged lib mind to believe any would want to.

This is what people don’t seem to get. Human nature is when things are bad we band together, when things are good, we compete against each other. Capitalism leverages the latter while communism just tries to ignore that it exists.

Capitalism certainly has its flaws, but it’s a far better starting point.

One time when we were tripping on acid, one guy found a blade a grass that he claimed was changing colors. A bunch of the other guys gathered around and they were all laying there in a circle on their stomachs looking at it, trying to figure out if it was actually changing colors or if they were just tripping.

They were being ridiculous so I was just laying there staring at the clouds laughing while listening to them debating it.

The best part was that after about 10 minutes, they concluded that it must actually be changing colors.

“You don’t wash the mushrooms? It says on the package, man, they might have poop or pesticide or whatever else.”

When we make something about the other person, telling them that they are wrong and, in this case, even disgusting, they are going to get offended and be less amendable to seeing your side and helping you out. They may get shamed into doing it, but I think this damages the relationship.

Just make it about yourself

“Hey, Im a bit squeamish about unwashed veggies. Do you mind if I rinse them for you?”

Gets the same point across, but makes it about yourself rather than the other person, so they have no reason to be defensive. They will also be more likely to open up to changing.

No need to fabricate some lie, as that might backfire at some point.

“Hey I would be more comfortable if the vegetables were washed. Do you mind if I wash them?”

Or just offer to help and start washing them.

The important thing is to not make it about them, but about you. Most people don’t get offended when you make it all about yourself, and not them doing something wrong.

I didn’t say they were the same thing; my whole point is that they are different. We’re talking about people thinking they’re talking to a human, compared to people attributing a single human attribute to a spoon. But probably not even really for the latter because if you ask someone if the spoon is actually sad, most everyone will say no.

You ask someone if the ugly spoon is human, they know it’s not.

We asked people if they were talking to a human, and it said yes.

These are not the same.

I see it as the opposite, and now that it’s getting uncomfortably close to seeming human, that makes people uncomfortable and so we are rejecting the turing test in favor of… what? It seems like nothing. It’s convenient that what makes us human is intangible.

How does lowering down payment requirements from 50% (!!!) prop up a market?

Really? This is an easy one: it opens to more people buying.

Investors (who could afford to buy multiple homes) lose money. How terrible.

I get that this is your talking point and you’re going to keep repeating it. But, again, it seems that the government, both local and central, are doing something to stop these people from losing money. Whether you think this is good or bad is inconsequential, clearly the government at all levels in China believes it’s bad, which is why they are making moves to stop it.

Apparently a lot of people’s investments are tied up in those properties so if they values tank they’ll lose everything. Normally I wouldn’t sympathize at all but Chinese people have very limited options to invest their money and grow their savings.

Let’s remember where this all starts from. The other poster said that if it tanks, people lose everything. You are now talking deflating the market softly, which indicates it is a bubble and that they are just trying to let the air out slowly. And ultimately, the top level point still stands: people are going to lose money, whether that be quickly or slowly.

Whether the the government is trying to “softly deflate it” or keep it growing (I suspect the latter, because again people losing all of their money in things the government has been encouraging and pumping up for decades is not a great look for them), they are propping it up, because letting the bubble burst would be a disaster.

sigh do you know what the minimum down payment for a home in central Beijing is? 50%.

It’s funny that you call me a liar, but then state that this has nothing to do with the central government, and then turn around and quote something from the article that is talking about the central bank of the country. lol You think see dishonesty in me because you know you are being dishonest.

I see it as more desperately trying to defend the Chinese government.

You didn’t demonstrate that they are wrong, you just said they are wrong. You didn’t even contradict the claims made in the article: that the government is clearly making efforts in an attempt to prop this up.

If they did, they would know that the prevailing thought on Chinese social media is that the government is allowing real estate developers to fall… And they’re definitely falling.

Well let’s start with, the prevailing opinion on social media here is that the Chinese government is attempting to prop up the real estate market, but it’s still “deflating.” Huh, interesting how “prevailing thought” on social media doesn’t really mean all that much.

And they are pointing to actions that contradict this “prevailing thought,” actions you haven’t actually challenged. And those actions that they point to shows that it’s falling despite their efforts, not that they are allowing it to happen. Again, you seem to just be ignoring facts you don’t like.

We can believe whatever reality we want when we don’t have to consider the facts. Just like good Trump supporters.

Maybe you should ask the Chinese government why it’s a big deal, because they are the ones who have been propping it up and are attempting to do so again now. It’s all right in the article.

I don’t care that they are losing money, but the point is that it represents a threat to the stability of the government.

Real estate should not be an investment and the people that got burned knew what they were signing up for.

I’m not sure how to answer this. We’re talking about empty places. You think these people were buying and building these places to lose money? As you point out, it’s been a great investment until now. Now the bubble the government created is bursting, which is the problem the article is talking about.

Make up quotes, call me an idiot based on them not making any sense. Classic.

corporations are not people, they are soulless, for-profit enterprises that will, for damn sure, abuse and exploit any one and any thing they can in the name of profit. They don’t get the defense of “victim blaming”.

So you agree with me that corporations can be victims, which is what I was originally responding to and you originally challenged.

You’re now saying that if proper precautions are not taken, you can’t be considered a victim.

This is classic victim blaming, which is my point. If I leave my wallet on the table at a bar and someone steals it, despite me being an idiot I’m still the victim of a crime. It’s not my fault, it’s the fault of the person who stole it.

Just like with the company in the OP, they are idiots for not taking proper precautions against malicious actors, but it’s still the fault of the malicious actor.