Despite the common allegation of the commentators getting paid for their posts, the paper suggested there was “no evidence” that they are paid anything for their posts, instead being required to do so as a part of their official party duties.

This is from the extremely short main body of the article sent to you supposedly “confirming” your beliefs. If you had even read this bit you would’ve realized the entire thing is unsupported nonsense. And again, from a later section:

David Wertime, writing in Foreign Policy, argued that the narrative where a large army of paid Internet commentators are behind China’s poor public dialogue with its critics is “Orwellian, yet strangely comforting”. Rather, many of the Chinese netizens spreading nationalist sentiment online are not paid, but often mean what they say.

Of course the first indication you’re wrong would be having to use an AI-generated image that employs a term which—again referring back to the article you were incapable of reading beyond the title (genuinely embarrassing)—is criticized even by an analyst at a US “N”GO as leaning towards racism. Also, “Hit them in the pocketbook ;)”? Even if the people you’re replying to really were paid for posting, how would this make them lose money, or even a single payment? It’s all nonsense.

Of course I’m not really replying to you, because your tactic is to, as you admit, “drop this image as a response to any of them and ignore whatever they say”, which you’ve done below when confronted with your hypocrisy. You’ll respond with the same vapid nonsense, because to do otherwise would be to lose your “superiority”; but to anyone else who sees this I think it will be clear that you’re not really superior, and the dismissive attitude with which you deflect all responses is just a petty rhetorical method used to hide the holes in your beliefs.

“Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side” — Jean-Paul Sartre