It's still an anecdote. Corporate housing discriminates against poor people and people of colour as a matter of incentive, which is no different in practice.

In any case, it doesn't change anything, if Singapore is oppressing LGBT people they will do so government owned housing or not.

Sorry but it’s just not an anecdote. It’s government policy, as you can easily determine by googling. It’s not like we have to take one person’s word for it that this is happening.

The argument is not about Singapore. You're making the argument that it's not a good idea to have government-run public housing (presumably in Berlin/US/UK) because one government somewhere they did something bad through that they could have done even with private housing.

It's an anecdote for your argument. If the argument was "did Singapore discriminate against people through housing" it wouldn't be. If the argument is "should we have public housing [here]" then it's an anecdote. You'd have to show that this would happen in the place in question. If you want to make a general statement, you'd have to make that clear and make the case that in such countries landlords wouldn't discriminate against you for being LGBT (which they absolutely do).

I’m not making any argument about whether it’s a good idea to have government run public housing. I think you have me confused with another poster.

Your definition of ‘anecdote’ seems way off to me. We’re talking about an objectively verifiable data point. Just because it doesn’t fully confirm some argument that someone’s making doesn’t make it an anecdote. Check the dictionary definition.

Anecdotes are objectively verifiable data points. The key is that they are a single data point and can't be used to make a general argument because of that. It's a single interesting story about an event. That is a valid definition of "anecdote".

Housing discrimination against LGBT people in Singapore isn't a single story, it's government policy.

The definition of 'anecdote' has nothing to do with arguments. 'Anecdote' isn't a back formation from 'anecdotal argument'.

It's completely legal for private landlords to discriminate against LGBT people in housing federally in the US, as well as many states, counties and cities. And it happens quite often.

There's also the Fair Housing Act exemptions, where small private landlords with fewer than about 4 units, or landlords that share buildings with their tenants, can ignore the discrimination limits imposed by the FHA.

I think Singapore discriminating against LGBTQ is the bigger deal than Singapore owning the housing.

It's all part of the same deal for people living in Singapore. They don't get to pick and choose which aspects of the government they want (democracy in Singapore is a farce.)

Sure, but that goes to show that "state ownership" simply means very different things in a democratic state vs a non-democratic state. Democratic state ownership is a kind of public ownership - the voters have some amount of control over the state, and through the state, over the owned resource. Non-democratic state ownership is a kind of private ownership - the dictator(s) have direct control of the resource, and the voters have no more rights to control state-owned property than corporate-owned property.