I've lived in the US for a really long time so a lot of this is out of date.

Waldviertel is a region near Vienna. They were poor farmers. When we used to visit family friends there, we'd pass the giant manure pile in the courtyard on the way into the living area. We'd walk right into the entrance/eating nook. There was one door to the kitchen, one to the bedrooms, and one that went directly to the pig stalls. You could hear and smell them while you were eating. They spoke a really thick Waldviertler dialect. I could not understand their grandmother at all. After the fall of the USSR that whole village slowly moved up the agriculture supply chain (ie storing grain, agricultural insurance, etc). Now they're rich. The grand kids of those farmers converted the farm into a mansion and they all speak High German now.

Ottakring only became part of Vienna in 1892. For a long time it was an industrial working class neighborhood. My relatives and everyone I knew in the area went to "Volksschule", that's essentially vocational school. While a working class background is often romanticized, many people from that background want to disassociate with it.

I can't understand old people when they speak Ottakringer but I still have enough of it that some people can identify me as coming from the 16th district, AKA Ottrakring. It's kind of fun to dip into it when I speak with my family but there's little reason to use it with other German speakers. Living in the US I have barely any reason to use German at all. Even when I run into people from Austria we usually find it easier to switch to English for actual work discussions.

Yes, and those rights actually exist in China as intended. However, they obviously do not exist as you’re choosing to interpret their constitution. It’s fine to be critical of how they believe these rights should operate, but claiming that they’re being hypocritical or disingenuous disregards the actual intention of what they wrote in their constitution. I’m happy to explain.

For one, Chinese people do vote in competitive elections at the local level. Of course, the constitution explicitly guarantees the centrality of the communist party so elections tend not to be won over ideological difference but rather perceived competence. You can say that’s not democratic but this is not in contradiction with the constitutional right to vote or run for office.

As for freedom of speech and press, these too exist. Just go on platforms like Weibo and you’ll find people complaining about government policy and corruption all the time. Investigative journalism is legal as well and there are cases of corruption or other failures caused by poor governance that journalists have uncovered without facing any retribution. The difference here is that separatist speech, calls for regime change, or disinformation are not legal. What is separatism or disinformation is obviously defined by the people enacting these laws which I’m sure you would argue undermines these rights. Again, that’s a reasonable argument but it doesn’t mean these rights don’t exist.

Freedom of assembly and protest also exist. Protests are more common in China than most people in western countries realize. The government has a high degree of fear over how they might develop though and apply similar kinds of restrictive permitting requirements that occurs in many western countries. Also the second the protest has any separatist or regime change elements it will be shut down. However, again this situation is clearly what the constitution intended if you read it in full.

So please, critique the specific ways in which the Chinese government interprets the rights written in their constitution. However, there’s no evidence that the Communist Party was acting disingenuous when they wrote their constitution. It’s not a worthless document just because you want it to be.