Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 254 posts

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#161

Post by kelnos »

nvusuvu wrote: post #144
smacktoward wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This word "luck" is used quite often yet every time I see it applied it there is always someone who "seizes opportunity when it comes and does what it takes to succeed" Of course you do, that's called survivorship bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias You see the one person who tried to seize the opportunity and succeeded, because by succeeding they became famous. You don't see all the people who tr…

How many tried just as hard to seize the opportunity?

Unfortunately that's just not knowable, I guess. And even if we could, how would we describe "hard"? And is "trying hard" even necessarily sufficient?

I would guess: no. Say we could map out every decision Chan made to get where he is. Let's also say we could quantify exactly how "hard" he worked.

To me, it follows that some of those decisions were likely pivotal in his success, even if they didn't seem like it at the time. And that some of the other decisions he could have made weren't obviously wrong decisions, or wouldn't even have decreased the quantified hardness he worked. But maybe making a different decision just one of those times (or maybe two, or three, or some manageable number) would have resulted in Chan toiling away in obscurity, despite trying so hard.

It seems reasonable to me to suggest that someone else attempting a parallel path as Chan, given similar starting conditions, might have made a few different decisions here and there, all of them involving equally hard work, but the outcome may have been nowhere near as good. So what do we call the cause of Chan's better outcome? Foresight? Better decision-making? Or just luck?

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#162

Post by stcredzero »

phs318u wrote: post #158
stcredzero wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you actually arguing parents should be allowed to self their children into servitude? No one wants children to be sold into servitude. However, the state impinging into family affairs to the point where it can be 100% prevented is essentially making the state the full de-facto guardians of the children. This is the state of affairs where children are informing on their parents to the state. It's in part up to the…

A contra point to the example you give regarding gay teenagers (last para), is the persistence in many parts of the world of "honour killings" contrary to government proclamations against such practices. In these situations, government failure to intervene (and educate, and...) renders legislative protections useless. Also, it seems to me that in the past (and the present!) gay teenagers had just as much (if not more…

A contra point to the example you give

None of those are contra points.

In these situations, government failure to intervene (and educate, and...) renders legislative protections useless.

No one would disagree that intervention at the level of preventing murder is probably a good idea. I'm sure no one would disagree that intervention by the state at the level of injections of hormones and anti-gay "therapy" would be an overreach. Preventing murder is objectively something the state should do. States that cannot maintain an monopoly on the use of force are failed states. However, the state should intervene as little as possible on things like family life. How much should the state intervene? Answering this question was the purpose of the exercise above, which you apparently missed. Take the policy and power you propose and put it into the hands of the worst state you can imagine. A policy to prevent the murder of children, if practiced correctly, would still be a good thing, even in a theocracy. (Perhaps especially there.) Once you start adding the enforcement of things like social standards and societal mores, then such power looks less palatable in the hands of the state. It's easier to see that if you imagine a horrible state.

Even in totalitarian theocracies, I'd suggest that in such regimes it's often outraged parents that "out" their gay children to the state.

This would also be a tragedy. Children outing their parents to the state would also be a tragedy.

I could be wrong.

Many of your statements are correct. What's to question is your positioning those statements as somehow contradicting my position. They do not.

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#163

Post by geggam »

kelnos wrote: post #161
nvusuvu wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many tried just as hard to seize the opportunity?

Unfortunately that's just not knowable, I guess. And even if we could, how would we describe "hard"? And is "trying hard" even necessarily sufficient? I would guess: no. Say we could map out every decision Chan made to get where he is. Let's also say we could quantify exactly how "hard" he worked. To me, it follows that some of those decisions were likely pivotal in his success, even if they didn't seem like it at th…

I would bet money on his choices being moments he learned what to not do. He failed over and over learning what to not do. Through persistence and dedication he succeeded when others simply quit and call it not possible.

That ... I would bet money on.

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#164

Post by the_af »

snapetom wrote: post #150
the_af wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! Eye-opening. Thanks for posting it.

That photo essay is from 2017 and addresses the ridiculously high real estate prices of Hong Kong. Colonialism isn't to blame for that. Globalism is. Colonial Hong Kong certainly wasn't all rosy. There was certainly vast inequity, but that had to do with global trends of poverty and essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time. Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial he…

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think this was caused by colonialism (for the record, I think it's caused by unchecked capitalism rather than "globalism").

> Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

It does sound offensive. The article doesn't even try to argue this, either. Those aren't my words either, since I know next to nothing about colonial Hong Kong.

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#165

Post by stcredzero »

snapetom wrote: post #150
the_af wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! Eye-opening. Thanks for posting it.

That photo essay is from 2017 and addresses the ridiculously high real estate prices of Hong Kong. Colonialism isn't to blame for that. Globalism is. Colonial Hong Kong certainly wasn't all rosy. There was certainly vast inequity, but that had to do with global trends of poverty and essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time. Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial he…

essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time

The original meaning of "second-world" was "behind the iron curtain." Hong Kong's being physically close to communist China might have had certain effects.

Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

As far as I know, Hong Kong is simultaneously wonderful and horrible in the same way New York City and SF are simultaneously wonderful and horrible, only more so in both directions. Given my experiences apartment hunting in SF, and other information, I'd guess that some SF housing would go almost to the same place, were it not for regulations. I've heard of a former housing regulator using his inside knowledge to convert entire houses into tiny "almost" studio apartments, which are technically still rooms.

The article reads like a subliminal hit piece against Jackie Chan.

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#166

Post by stcredzero »

the_af wrote: post #164
snapetom wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That photo essay is from 2017 and addresses the ridiculously high real estate prices of Hong Kong. Colonialism isn't to blame for that. Globalism is. Colonial Hong Kong certainly wasn't all rosy. There was certainly vast inequity, but that had to do with global trends of poverty and essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time. Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial he…

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think this was caused by colonialism (for the record, I think it's caused by unchecked capitalism rather than "globalism"). > Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive. It does sound offensive. The article doesn't even try to argue this, either. Those aren't my words either, since I know next to nothing about colonial Hong Kong.

More housing regulation would prevent some of the coffin sized bedrooms. I'm not sure if human dignity would be increased or decreased in that case, if such regulation would cause more homelessness.

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#167

Post by chaostheory »

wenc wrote: post #124
chaostheory wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

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

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#168

Post by the_af »

chaostheory wrote: post #121
the_af wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 aga…

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…

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.

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#169

Post by vinceguidry »

stcredzero wrote: post #142
vinceguidry wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would you think of a boarding school, where there is a meritocratic selection of child candidates from among primarily underprivileged families? The families that are selected receive a payment. The child is housed, schooled, and given rigorous training in a prestigious performance art. If this is a public, regulated social institution, then I see no problem with it. I don't want to say that children shouldn't…

If this is a public, regulated social institution, then I see no problem with it. I would rather live in a society that's free enough for private schools to be established. I just don't know where precisely to make that legal distinction. I think we can set objective standards for the housing and treatment of children. Objective standards make it easier for government to adjudicate fairly, and prevent the abuse of po…

Apologies, what I meant by public is that they are visible and an integral part of society, not necessarily their specific ownership structure. The visibility is what prevents abuses, not the ownership. They can well be privately owned, they just need to operate overtly.

If these organizations were trying to keep a low profile, then that would be cause for concern.

> I think we can set objective standards for the housing and treatment of children. Objective standards make it easier for government to adjudicate fairly, and prevent the abuse of power by officials and regulators.

We are in agreement on this point. I was merely expressing ignorance of the specific standards that I would consider to be ideal.

Re: The Painful Price of Becoming Jackie Chan

#170

Post by vinceguidry »

Vicktree wrote: post #147
vinceguidry wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it just be because he likes it?

liking something is important but you have to ask why they liked it in the first place. The reason for their desire matters. Professional football player might "like" football even though it takes a heavy physical toll (brain damage, joint damage, etc.) but notice the people becoming professional football players are usually from disadvantaged neighborhoods who see the sport as one of the few ladders they can use to…

> The reason Jackie Chan took all of those risks and "liked it" is because of his economic status.

I think you have this exactly backward. He took the risks not knowing they would make him an international star. I submit that he only could have done that if he enjoyed not just the fruits, but the process. Several times he describes volunteering for things others wouldn't do. You wouldn't do that if you weren't at least indifferent, if not eager, to confront the danger.

Post reply on HN