
The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan - tmitchell
https://newrepublic.com/article/152848/painful-price-becoming-jackie-chan
======
doitLP
Here’s a really cool video breaking down exactly how Jackie sets up his stunt-
action-comedy.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ)

One thing that was particular interesting to me is how the setup always starts
with him at an extreme disadvantage: no shoes, tied to a chair, hanging upside
down, etc. I never noticed it before and it’s exactly what makes his action so
enjoyable to watch.

(The YouTube Channel is called Every Frame a Painting and all the other videos
are fascinating and very worth checking out.)

~~~
jdietrich
The lack of respect Chan gets in the west is a travesty IMO. His fight
choreography is rooted in the traditions Chinese opera while being constantly
fresh, playful and imaginative. He shows absolute technical mastery, but there
is always a sense of child-like joy underpinning that mastery. The fact that
his films are often regarded as frivolous and lightweight says something
profound about what is valued in our cultural milieu.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Doesn't he do a lot of frivolous and light-hearted movies though -- I'm a huge
fan.

Take a movie like "Who am I", it's like Johnny English meets Drunken Master.

"Kung Fu" films to me always have a notion of slapstick, even the beautiful
ones like House of Flying Daggers; Chan's background in Opera I imagine helps
to fulfill that element of slightly ludicrous spectacle (at least if Chinese
opera has any similarity to its Western namesake).

I mean Shanghai Noon, great film within its genre, but goofy as anything;
actors doing those sorts of movies just aren't treated as serious actors I
guess.

~~~
jdietrich
You can be goofy and fun _and_ make high art. Slapstick spectacle can also be
profound. There's a certain po-faced affectation that is necessary to be
called an artist. Being good isn't good enough; you also need to convincingly
ape the norms of a self-appointed cultural elite.

The disparity in esteem between pop and rock springs to mind. We have an
ingrained sense that if a record appeals to 13-year-old girls, then it must on
some level be inherently inferior to a record that appeals to middle-aged men,
regardless of the actual sophistication of the music in question. A teenage
boy learning to play guitar carries an entirely different set of cultural
connotations and expectations than a teenage girl learning to sing, regardless
of how much effort they each expend. The term "credibility" hides a deep vein
of ugly bigotry.

~~~
orangeeater
> There's a certain po-faced affectation that is necessary to be called an
> artist. Being good isn't good enough; you also need to convincingly ape the
> norms of a self-appointed cultural elite.

The cultural elite isn't self-appointed. They clawed their way up there the
same way as everyone else who has reached some position in some hierarchy. And
that includes various hierarchies of artists.

> The disparity in esteem between pop and rock springs to mind. We have an
> ingrained sense that if a record appeals to 13-year-old girls, then it must
> on some level be inherently inferior to a record that appeals to middle-aged
> men, regardless of the actual sophistication of the music in question.

I think the more standard criticism is that some music is made by a committee
as a product whereas other music is the result of a group/individual trying to
make good music and that, in general, the latter category is better. I don't
necessarily accept this argument, but it's different than the one you're
proposing.

More generally, I find your attitude perplexing. If you want to think about
this subject seriously, then surely there is no objective way to view art. If
that's the case, then saying "you can be goofy and make art" is pointless
because it's obvious. It's all just people's opinions. "Being goofy" can be
art just like anything else.

Where I strongly disagree is where you sneer at "high art" and the "cultural
elite". In my opinion, "high art" is art that is appreciated by rich/educated
people who have been exposed to different things than less rich/less educated
people. "High art" isn't better or worse than "low art". The definition of art
is "something from which people derive emotion".

~~~
jdietrich
>The cultural elite isn't self-appointed.

Charles Saatchi is the most influential man in contemporary visual art. Why?
Because he made a bunch of money in advertising and bought a bunch of art. He
clawed his way up the hierarchy of advertising, but he bought his status as
the kingmaker of contemporary art. Do a broad sample of artists consider
Saatchi to have exceptional taste? Does he have unique insights into the
creative process? Mu.

------
vinceguidry
The author doesn't want to treat Chan's insistence on his account being an
inspirational one and just wants to see it as sad.

I'm reminded of a Quora answer by a guy who loved fighting, one phrase he used
stuck out at me. "Great fighters have to kind of like getting hit."

You can't push your body to its very limits without getting injured. Planning
and preparing for it is not sad, it's smart. Chan's account should be taken at
face value. It is inspirational for all the reasons he thinks it is.

I mean, sure, it would be way better if Hong Kong weren't the colonial hell-
hole it was. Chan rose above that and made a noticeable dent in the world. If
he could do it in the situation he grew up in, anyone can.

As the Brits like to say, Chan and his story are exactly what it says on the
tin. To say it's not demeans Chan and his life and his choices.

~~~
karmelapple
> "Great fighters have to kind of like getting hit."

I'd generalize it to: "Great craftspeople have to kind of like the part of
their craft that is unpleasant to 99% of the population."

Someone who excels at playing violin, writing computer software, public
speaking, etc., generally does not find the "unpleasant" part to be "tiring",
"boring", or "work". Instead, it's just part of the overall experience, which
is a net positive.

When I was younger, I had a classmate who's an excellent violin player. Her
practice schedule sounded awful to me, with well over an hour spent even on
weekdays. I played musical instruments, too, and I liked a little practice,
but rarely more than 30 minutes in a day.

I asked the violin player about this schedule, and the way she answered the
question made it clear that practicing didn't seem unpleasant, or like "work,"
like it would to many other people. It was something she truly enjoyed.

Similar things can be applied to software development and liking the idea of
investigating obtuse error messages and things breaking without any clear root
cause.

~~~
_hardwaregeek
Yeah, I'm a little skeptical of CS schools that try to shelter their students
from suffering. While schools should obviously not attempt to break students,
there should be a reasonable crescendo of difficulty within the program.
Because, well, software development can be _hard_. Students that don't like
the hard parts don't like software development. This doesn't mean insanely
hard "weed-out" classes, but simply projects that reflect the difficulty and
demand of the real world.

~~~
shagie
At some point I was introduced to "Find The Hard Work You're Willing To Do" \-
[http://www.cs.uni.edu/%7Ewallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2018...](http://www.cs.uni.edu/%7Ewallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2018-10.html#e2018-10-21T09_53_29.htm)

I think this is an important bit that a lot of people getting into programming
don't realize. Many enjoy the "playing with computers" aspect. Some even enjoy
writing new code. But the _real_ test is do you enjoy fixing broken code?

The article ends with:

> Maybe this is what people mean when they tell us to "find our passion", but
> that phrase seems pretty abstract to me. Maybe instead we should encourage
> people to find the hard problems they like to work on. Which problems do you
> want to keep working on, even when they turn out to be harder than you
> expected? Which kinds of frustration do you enjoy, or at least are willing
> to endure while you figure things out? Answers to these very practical
> questions might help you find a place where you can build an interesting and
> rewarding life.

> I realize that "Find your passion" makes for a more compelling motivational
> poster than "What hard problems do you enjoy working on?" (and even that's a
> lot better than "What kind of pain are you willing to endure?"), but it
> might give some people a more realistic way to approach finding their life's
> work.

\--

Another article that I love is Programming Sucks (
[https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-
sucks](https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks) )

This one starts with:

> Every friend I have with a job that involves picking up something heavier
> than a laptop more than twice a week eventually finds a way to slip
> something like this into conversation: “Bro, you don’t work hard. I just
> worked a 4700-hour week digging a tunnel under Mordor with a screwdriver.”

> They have a point. Mordor sucks, and it’s certainly more physically taxing
> to dig a tunnel than poke at a keyboard unless you’re an ant. But, for the
> sake of the argument, can we agree that stress and insanity are bad things?
> Awesome. Welcome to programming.

\--

This "What kinds of frustration do you enjoy" I believe is a stumbling block
for many people looking to enter the work force. I've encountered people in
the past who love writing code but hate debugging.

~~~
yesenadam
I didn't realize _anyone_ likes fixing broken code, debugging, or - from
reading HN - what seems like what most professional programmers spend most of
their time doing, inheriting a huge broken mess of old software and having to
come to understand it and clean it up somewhat. I don't remember
reading/hearing anyone say they actually _like_ it.

edit: Nice to hear it!

~~~
taneq
Finding and diagnosing bugs is annoying. Actually fixing them is super
satisfying though. Same with cleaning up old crusty code, figuring out wtf
it's meant to be doing is painful but turning it into clear clean well-
factored efficient code is satisfying.

------
the_af
Interesting how difficult and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was. He certainly
succeeded, but at what cost? This article reviews how Chan downplays the
hardships he was forced to endure (e.g. being essentially sold by his parents
as an indentured servant when he was seven years old, complete with beatings
and dismal living conditions) and instead chooses to focus on the end result,
his success as an adult.

~~~
chaostheory
> He certainly succeeded, but at what cost?

The cost would be paid by Chan regardless of whether he became rich and
famous. Specifically, he did not have a choice for being a slave in the Peking
Opera house, so I'm not sure what point you and the author are trying to make.
Paraphrasing Obama, Chan has embraced the burden of his past without becoming
and staying a victim of it. Jackie Chan has taken responsibility for his life
and successfully determined his own destiny. What does the author suggest
Jackie Chan do instead of rising above his past? Obsess about it and wallow in
despair, hopelessness, and depression?

~~~
the_af
> The cost would be paid by Chan regardless of whether he became rich and
> famous

I'm not sure. Maybe he wouldn't have had to be sold as an indentured servant,
get beaten, be deprived of an education, and sleep on a mattress soiled with
piss. Or maybe he would have died of starvation, who knows? Or maybe he would
have moved with his parents to Australia, where the article mentions they
went. It's definitely worth thinking about.

Please don't conflate my opinion and that of the author. I can't answer what
the author's point was.

> What does the author suggest Jackie Chan do instead of rising above his
> past? Obsess about it and wallow in despair, hopelessness, and depression?

Again, I can't answer for the author, but I can think of a few things Chan
could do: help prevent a similar hard childhood for current kids. Speak out.
Join an advocacy group. Maybe raise awareness of how dire the situation for
many families was in colonial Hong Kong. Not saying all of these would be
helpful (and maybe he already does some of this), but arguing there's only
despair and hopelessness seems disingenuous to me.

~~~
chaostheory
Your opinion seems to echo the author's so it was an obvious question, though
I only expected to hear yours

> Maybe he wouldn't have had to be sold as an indentured servant,

Again, that wasn't his choice. There was no choice for Jackie Chan. That was
his parents' choice. The only choice Jackie had is to either to focus on
attaining his definition of success, while acknowledging the past; or to let
the obsession of the past overtake his life and wallow in self pity. Where we
disagree is that I feel the former choice is the healthier one.

> Again, I can't answer for the author, but I can think of a few things Chan
> could do: help prevent a similar hard childhood for current kids. Speak out.
> Join an advocacy group.

Yes like many other celebrities, Jackie Chan has charitable efforts for
children and other causes. I don't disagree, but neither you nor the author
mentioned this until now which made your argument seem pointless.

> Maybe raise awareness of how dire the situation for many families was in
> colonial Hong Kong.

That was probably the point of recounting his hardship while at the peking
opera. Colonial HK and the peking opera, at least in its previous form, also
do not exist anymore.

> but arguing there's only despair and hopeless seems disingenuous to me

That wasn't my argument. My point was that it seemed that you and the author
feel that Jackie Chan did not obsess enough about the sadness and pain of his
early life. I felt what both you and the author were advocating was senseless.

~~~
the_af
> Your opinion seems to echo the author's so it was an obvious question

But it doesn't. I wrote a single paragraph, mostly describing what I thought
was a key aspect of the article, and calling it "interesting". The author
wrote a whole article addressing multiple things. I'm not even the submitter
of the article! Your assumptions are unwarranted.

> neither you nor the author mentioned this until now which made your argument
> seem pointless.

But I didn't make any argument. Please re-read what I wrote and tell me what
my "argument" was that seemed "pointless" to you.

It seems you are arguing with me because you can't with the author? I just
wrote something about the actual content of the article, when other replies
were "I loved Jackie Chan in Rush Hour!", which is unrelated to the topic.

~~~
chaostheory
Maybe I am arguing with you because I can't do the same with the author. Does
your comment not reiterate the article's core ideas in a nice little package?
The size of the content is irrelevant when it resonates with the larger work.
Is it not natural to ask "What's the point?" when none was seemingly provided?

~~~
the_af
> Does your comment not reiterate the article's core ideas in a nice little
> package?

No?

> Maybe I am arguing with you because I can't do the same with the author.

Indeed.

Because my post was very short, let me quote it here in its entirety, and
please tell me how it "resonates" with the article and what point you think I
-- along with the author, apparently -- am making, or _should_ be making:

> "Interesting how difficult and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was. He
> certainly succeeded, but at what cost? This article reviews how Chan
> downplays the hardships he was forced to endure (e.g. being essentially sold
> by his parents as an indentured servant when he was seven years old,
> complete with beatings and dismal living conditions) and instead chooses to
> focus on the end result, his success as an adult."

As you can see, I'm not trying to make any point. I've no idea what the
article's author thinks, but you may have surmised I think the cost was too
much. You'd be correct: I wouldn't wish this childhood on any kid, from Hong
Kong or elsewhere. I'm glad Jackie Chan managed to survive and become
successful, because I like him and his movies.

~~~
chaostheory
Let me dissect it.

> Interesting how difficult and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was. He
> certainly succeeded, but at what cost?

You echo the article's conclusion. You agree with its main idea.

> This article reviews how Chan downplays the hardships he was forced to
> endure (e.g. being essentially sold by his parents as an indentured servant
> when he was seven years old, complete with beatings and dismal living
> conditions) and instead chooses to focus on the end result, his success as
> an adult."

You now summarize the article. Can you not see how someone would feel that you
agreed with the author?

> I've no idea what the article's author thinks, but you may have surmised I
> think the cost was too much

The author makes it very clear how he feels. It's pretty disingenuous for
anyone who's read the article to say that.

Do you disagree with the article?

~~~
the_af
> You echo the article's conclusion. You agree with its main idea.

No. The article is very long, draws many conclusions and ponders many aspects
of Jackie's life and autobiography, and I only mentioned one aspect (a
question, not a conclusion by the way). I'm completely silent on other issues
raised by the article, such as Jackie Chan's opinions of freedom, his
injuries, his relationship with mainland China, etc.

So no, I wouldn't say I "agree with its main idea". I do find the article
interesting, which is what I said: no more, no less.

> You now summarize the article.

Yes.

> Can you not see how someone would feel that you agreed with the author?

No.

> The author makes it very clear how he feels.

Then why do you ask me?

> Do you disagree with the article?

I find parts of it I agree with, others uninteresting, others I disagree with.
I already explained what I find interesting in my initial post ("how difficult
and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was") and in my previous post I mentioned I
wouldn't wish such a childhood on any kid.

~~~
chaostheory
> Then why do you ask me?

Because from my perspective it seems like you had an opinion and then you
backed away once I challenged it. You dance around it enough to pretend that
the author didn't make a clear opinion.

> I only mentioned one aspect (a question, not a conclusion by the way)

It sounded rhetorical. Like with other religious wars, we can agree to
disagree. From my perspective, I still feel that your original point was that
you felt Jackie Chan was wrong "to focus on the end result, his success as an
adult" instead of contemplating more on his hard childhood. I'm not sure why
you'd back away from that opinion. While I disagree with it, it isn't exactly
controversial either.

~~~
the_af
> Because from my perspective it seems like you had an opinion and then you
> backed away once I challenged it.

From my perspective you made a mistake and now you're too proud to admit it.

What you "feel" I meant is wrong. I didn't even make a point. And I explicitly
told you what I meant!

Interesting that you're now framing this as a "religious war". What I think is
less interesting is that I have to defend myself against things you think I
_might_ have said according to what you "feel".

~~~
chaostheory
I did not make a mistake. I stand by my opinion as well as the accompanying
rationale for making my conclusion.

Here's the anatomy of your initial comment:

1\. Statement and rhetorical question echoing the article's main message

2\. A conclusion using a summary of the article. The article only has one main
conclusion.

Was that comment not an opinion or are you making comments that article
summary bots make? Forgive me for making an incorrect assumption.

~~~
the_af
Yes, you made a mistake.

No, I do not forgive you for jumping to conclusions, and no, I didn't give any
opinion in my initial post or echo the main point of an article with many
points. When asked, I told you what I found interesting about the article and
whether I found the cost Jackie paid too high (I do).

Did you even wonder whether I've read the autobiography the author of the
piece is commenting on? (no, I have not). Then how on earth could I hold his
same opinion?

Thinking that an incomplete summary of something means agreeing with it is
such a naive assumption it's funny.

Let it go. You're wrong. Or you can pretend my opinion is what you "feel" it
must be, whatever.

~~~
chaostheory
> and whether I found the cost Jackie paid too high (I do).

Then I clearly didn't make a mistake. This is the article's core idea and I
disagree with it for reasons that I've already outlined in my previous
comments.

~~~
the_af
Yes you did, because that's not the article's core idea (which is more focused
on Jackie's refusal to say more about his past hardships, what the article
calls his "blindspot" [1]), and it says nothing about whether _I agree with
the article_.

Did you wonder why I even felt the need to write a summary? Why would I need
to, if one could simply just read TFA? It's because at the time I posted, most
people were commenting stuff like "I love Jackie Chan's movies, Rush Hour is
cool!", which seemed to me to be entirely off-topic and likely written by
people who hadn't bothered to read the article. So I summarized _one_ of the
ideas of the article -- the one I thought was worth discussing -- in hopes of
getting the discussion back on track.

I succeeded. I just didn't expect your extremely literal and hilariously
childlike interpretation of my post.

[1] Please don't debate this point with me as if it was mine. I know it's
confusing because the words are there in my post, but that's not magic: it's
called "summarizing what someone else said" \-- trust me! If you disagree with
it, I don't know, write the author an angry email.

~~~
the_af
@chaostheory

> Unless you're a summary bot, most people inject their opinion when
> summarizing an article.

That's not the purpose of a summary. My opinion is that it was "interesting"
and wanted to move the conversation back on track, away from Jackie Chan's
martial abilities and back on the subject of the submitted article.

> ok, let's pretend you didn't agree with article. It doesn't take away from
> the fact that my comments just strongly disagreed with the idea of Jackie
> "paying too high a price for success"

I've no problem with that. I can understand your disagreement. As I said, I
agreed with parts of the article, disagreed with others, found other parts
irrelevant, and found some interesting -- as in "meriting further discussion".

Do you see that I'm upset not about whether we disagree on Jackie Chan's life
(why would that bother me?) but because you built a nice strawman, lumping my
opinion with that of the author as if we were of a single mind, and proceeded
to attack that? It's offensive and it's usually an underhanded debate tactic.

Had you answered "I disagree with the author because <reasons>", I wouldn't
have had any problem. Instead, you wrote "I'm not sure what point you and the
author are trying to make". I'm willing to believe that was a mistake, if
you'll simply say "ok, I made a mistake. I was in disagreement with the
author."

~~~
chaostheory
> nstead, you wrote "I'm not sure what point you and the author are trying to
> make". I'm willing to believe that was a mistake, if you'll simply say "ok,
> I made a mistake. I was in disagreement with the author."

1\. I am not mistaken. Your opinion of Jackie Chan "paying too high of a
price" for his fame is an idea that the author shares. It is literally written
throughout the article that you summarized. It's effectively part of your
summary.

2\. Even if the first point wasn't true, and you have the unlikely and
uncommon habit of quoting things that you have no opinion over; it doesn't
matter. I was still arguing against your opinion of Chan paying a high price
for fame. Your focus on whether or not the author had the same idea serves as
a distraction from you either not being able to come up with an effective
counter argument, or maybe even changing your opinion since it seems like you
are distancing yourself from it.

"I'm not sure what point you are trying to make"

Happy?

------
vertline3
We have this tendency to look at successful people and think we can imitate
them and have their success. I see Bill Gates is always giving a list of his
favorite books of the year. Sorry Bill, if I read your books, I won't be a
billionaire. Well Jackie Chan as great, talented, funny as he is. No matter
what, I will never be him. Survivor bias and luck play a large role beyond
what hard work and pain alone do.

~~~
diob
Right. A large part of success is definitely luck and random opportunity, but
I will say that you still have to be prepared for those instances to take
advantage of them(unless you have nepotism on your side, then you can coast to
your heart's content).

For us in the the lower / middle class, the best we can do is prepare as much
as we can for the day we encounter luck or opportunity. No amount of
preparation / commitment / training guarantees success, but we can't afford to
be fatalistic about it.

I do agree that we need to be more empathetic with those who haven't succeeded
though. People tend to assume it's due to some personal fault rather than
accounting for the luck / opportunity aspect. Humans tend to think that when
they themselves fail it's because of outside forces they couldn't control, but
when others fail it's because of internal forces they could have controlled.

~~~
bhhaskin
I think you are correct. I would say there are things that one can do to
improve their odds of random opportunity and luck. A good example of that is
hanging out with the right people and staying positive & motivated. In a lot
of ways it is like dating. You need to be putting yourself out there. It isn't
going to magically just happen. You have to make it happen.

------
goertzen
The first paragraph does a great job of summarizing and contextualizing Jackie
Chan's career.

But the rest of the article seems to drunkenly wonder around bumping into
rhetorical questions that don't lead anywhere other than the reporter believes
that Jackie Chan didn't complain or rejoice enough in his hardships or
successes.

Ok, sure. I guess that's one opinion. But I'm kind of surprised that the
reporter didn't have more to say than that.

~~~
kzzzznot
Yes I thought the article was poorly written. Not really sure what angle the
author was coming from

------
Fricken
When I was kid, before reality, I wanted to be a stuntman. I'd round up my
friends to shoot little actions movies with my Grandpa's Sony hi-8. They were
structured on flimsy narratives that only served to facilitate fist fights,
chase sequences and opportunities for a big fall. To convince my friends to
get up at 8:00 on a Saturday to shoot all day around the neighbourhood I
always gave away the part of the hero so I was always the bad guy, sometimes
several bad guys in different costumes, but I also let me do most the
directing. I figured out how to assembly edit all in camera, and then add
music and sound effects when transferring to VHS. Anyway, when I discovered
Jackie Chan he rocked my world.

------
wiradikusuma
The sentiment from people from his home country is mixed, esp. regarding his
behavior. E.g. [https://www.quora.com/Do-the-Chinese-like-Jackie-
Chan](https://www.quora.com/Do-the-Chinese-like-Jackie-Chan)

I'm still a fan though, but only for his movies.

------
satori99
Jackie Chan, in addition to being a world famous film star, is also an
Honorary Professor of Tourism and a teaching member of the faculty at Hong
Kong Polytechnic University.

I know this because he shares an office there with someone I know. I initially
didn't believe it when I was told, but Wikipedia backs the story up.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Chan#Academic_career](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Chan#Academic_career)

------
jasonjei
Jackie Chan, though, is an apologist for the Mainland government, and even
suggested that Taiwan, perhaps (as of now) the only Chinese-speaking
democracy, has “too much freedom.”

~~~
tomxor
> is an apologist for the Mainland government

Yes but doesn't any Chinese person have to be if they want to maintain any
kind of ability to travel in China? _Especially_ if they are famous.

~~~
jasonjei
That might be true, but I think HN readers are not commonly aware that he is
one. He once said in December 2012, that “Hong Kong is a ‘city of protest,’
suggesting that demonstrators' rights in Hong Kong should be limited. The same
month, in an interview with Phoenix TV, Chan stated that the United States was
the ‘most corrupt’ country in the world.” This is a man whose made plenty of
his fortune in the US.

Before we heap praise on Jackie Chan, I think it’s important to know his full
background.

~~~
kkarakk
i'm all for "exposing" how people really think but China is a country that
literally disappears people, high profile internationally famous people like
fan bingbing, for not paying their taxes. judicial process is almost a non-
entity there if you anger the government.do you think chan has a choice in
anything he says?

his choices are to toe the government line or never go back to his homeland.
do you also criticize the chinese installed panchen lama for not speaking up
against china?

~~~
jasonjei
He does have a choice—and he lives in Hong Kong. There are those Hong Kong
citizens that have expressed their free rights yet are not able to enter the
Mainland.

Here’s the HK newspaper view on him:
[https://m.scmp.com/culture/books/article/2176919/why-
hypocri...](https://m.scmp.com/culture/books/article/2176919/why-hypocritical-
jackie-chans-empty-confessions-deserve-no-sympathy)

This is about Jackie Chan. I’m afraid you’re presenting a strawmam’s argument
with respect to what else the Mainland Chinese government has done—while you
seem to be refuting my argument, you are presenting an argument that I didn’t
present. I’m obviously fairly critical of the Chinese government.

I’m reminded of this poem:

``First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was
not a socialist. / Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak
out— Because I was not a trade unionist. / Then they came for the Jews, and I
did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. / Then they came for me—and there
was no one left to speak for me.’’

~~~
kkarakk
haha yeah so jackie chan should risk his life,fame and possessions so
westerners he cares nothing about can feel good about lambasting china

~~~
vhjcvnnb
Couldn’t agree more. The whole simplistic idea of just throwing everything
that took years to build just because some stranger can feel good shows a lack
of understanding the economic hardship it took to get there.

------
tunesmith
"Chinese people need to be controlled, otherwise they will do whatever they
want."

Haha... wow, that circular reasoning is so tight it's almost not even a circle
anymore. "Chinese people need to be controlled, otherwise they will not be
controlled". I have a theory that all circular reasoning can be reduced down
to a (probably faulty) axiom or assertion.

~~~
chaostheory
For the record, I strongly disagree with Jackie's opinion. It does need more
context though. China is a low trust society that doesn't have a strong rule
of law. What this translates into is fake medicine, fake food, newly built
buildings and bridges that either fall apart or are falling apart, police and
low level government officials who need bribes for mundane things and so on.
Jackie mainly wants a stronger rule of law. (He's just wrong about accepting a
government with unlimited power. eg he thinks protests are bad) Of course,
you're not going to get all of this from someone who didn't receive a lot of
formal education, speaking in the 3rd language that he learned, in a small
sound bite.

~~~
wenc
> China is a low trust society that doesn't have a strong rule of law. What
> this translates into is fake medicine, fake food, newly built buildings and
> bridges that either fall apart or are falling apart, police and low level
> government officials who need bribes for mundane things and so on.

I'm sure this is all true, but I'm curious, have you lived in China? What's
your take on the lived experience in China?

I just wanted to see this from different perspectives, because the United
States has many parts that are perceived as hellholes in the abstract (like
the city of Chicago where I live), but in reality daily life is quite normal
and livable.

~~~
chaostheory
Yes. My perspective is skewed though. I know it as a child who didn't know any
better, and now as an adult Americanized outsider with ties that keep
weakening with time, exacerbated by differences in culture. While some things
have stayed the same, a lot has also changed since I lived there.

Anywhere is livable, if you either don't have a choice or you're ignorant of
alternatives. Looking at it as an American, parts are definitely livable as
long as you don't mind the pollution. (I remember being so shocked at how
clean the US was when I first arrived.) Life in general feels "faster". Kind
of like NYC even crazier. I'd say the hardest part will be being accustomed to
the culture. It's not as complicated as formal Japanese culture, but there's a
lot of subtle formalities you have to learn and adapt to...

Oh - the big thing is plumbing and bathrooms. While it has gotten a lot
better, you probably want to bring a roll of toilet paper with you anywhere
you go. You may have to get used to squat toilets depending on where you go
too. Aside from occasional food poisoning, it's definitely livable

~~~
tivert
> Aside from occasional food poisoning

I swamp my system with probiotics whenever I go there and I haven't had any
food poisoning issues. I used these on my last visit:
[http://www.jarrow.com/product/662/Jarro-
Dophilus_EPS](http://www.jarrow.com/product/662/Jarro-Dophilus_EPS)

YMMV. I haven't been to China without doing the probiotics thing, but I have
gotten sick in other places without them.

------
alexashka
This is an incredibly disrespectful article.

> He was, in effect, a walking slab of meat to be trotted out whenever a
> Peking opera production needed a singer or dancer or acrobat.

These hyperboles, so full of off-putting judgements are completely
unnecessary. It's almost as if the author is hoping to gain, by being as rude
and sensationalistic as possible.

Imagine if the author of this article actually met Jackie Chan - he'd crumble
in shame if he has an iota of decency left in him/her. This article can be
renamed 'the painful price of trying to be a journalist' \- it'd be more
accurate.

~~~
l33tbro
Well Jackie Chan is not the most undeserving target.

In past, he narrowly missed out on 'father of the year' after admitting to
throwing his young child across a room (1). He was overlooked a second time
when he disowned his illegitimate daughter over her sexuality.

(1) [https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/03/asia/jackie-chan-
autobiog...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/03/asia/jackie-chan-
autobiography-intl/index.html)

