But yeah, the injury is scary, amazing how he kept doing his stunts after that

Movies of pretty much ever forign directors have been remade or rebooted.

So if you want to say that Hollywood has respect of nothing, then fine, bit it does not reflect on him at all.

Maybe you just need better friends?

Your anecdotes certainly aren't universal.

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".

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

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

There's a funny perk to bughunting... the amount of time it can take is nondeterministic so you can take breaks during it (they help you find the root cause, anyway, by clearing your head) and nobody will complain. "I'm thinking about the bug! Backburner debugging!"

Here’s the HK newspaper view on him: https://m.scmp.com/culture/books/article/2176919/why-hypocri...

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.’’

Partially because Chan is older in those movies and is a little less physically capable.

But IMO mostly because of Hollywood's unfortunate style of directing fights and martial arts battles.

Traditional Hong Kong martial arts movies use a lot of wide and long, unbroken shots. You can really see the performers performing these physical acts of skill and beauty -- you see their entire bodies, it's almost like watching performers on a stage. Which is of course Chan's background.

In contrast, Western directors typically use a lot of fast, tight, jerky, almost seizure-inducing cuts. A closeup of a fist hitting a face. A closeup of an elbow hitting a knee. A closeup of a face showing somebody's reaction to the pain. Etc. etc etc. There's much less continuity. 98% of the scenes are probably shot by stunt/body doubles. It doesn't take a lot of talent for an actor to pull off a scene like that, at least not compared to the traditional HK style where the actors have had a lifetime of martial arts training.

Of course, those are vast generalizations. You can name plenty of counterexamples from both schools!

I kitesurf. You can pick up the F1 of kites for around a grand. It's like being tied to an F1 car. Or go surfing, tech and shapes haven't changed for a few decades. So boards are cheap. Paddle out when it's big. That's a lot of water sloshing around. Being trapped out back on a big day is truly terrifying. And the only way in is to surf one of those waves. Makes my bum-hole tingle just thinking about it.

1- "I suppose you'd have to ask him if he'd rather have lived a normal life": we don't need to ask Jackie Chan what he thinks, because he already answered in interviews: he thinks his life was worth it. That's sort of the point of the article.

2- "kids in Africa become slaves or child soldiers and end up dead.": yes, some kids have it worse than Jackie Chan's life. So?

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 hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

edit: Nice to hear it!

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.

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.

Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.

^ This right here.

There are many things to say about the damages caused by colonialism, but complaining that it's not covered in a book about Chan (who got immensely successful), in Hong Kong (which became very wealthy) in the 1960/70s (while the rest of China was basically burning down) misses the mark. There is a historical context that is quite specific to Hong Kong: the majority of its population actually moved there post-WW2 to escape the troubles on the mainland. Moreover before its decades of unrest, China had been ruled by the Qing, whom most Chinese considered to also be colonisers (the Qing were Manchus who imposed their customs on the Han Chinese majority), so in that regards the British were not some sort of uniquely evil rulers, they were yet another bunch of invaders, who happened to be slightly less violent than the other ones next door.

I think that's why Chan ignored the colonialist angle: it's kind of hard to hate on a city if your family willingly moved there. And yes there is hardship and injustice, but in the rest of China people are either getting purged or are literally dying of hunger. I believe his apolitical view of that era is quite common amongst his generation: yep HK was ruled by some foreigners for a while, next chapter please.

There are some Brits who would tell you that HK developed "thanks to" the UK (I am of the opinion that when a colonised city surpasses even the UK's GDP without being granted any meaningful democratic rights, they succeeded despite your rule, not because of it). This article takes the opposite position but still implies the same thing, that Hong-Kongers were victims with little agency, which I find patronizing when in reality they where a city of refugees who brilliantly navigated a difficult era. Likewise presenting Chan's physical trauma as representative of Hong-Kong's development strikes me as completely off. Lots and lots of people accessed the middle and upper class in the 70s and 80s. Most of them were not stuntmen, it turns out. I must say this is the first Western review I see of this book, and it's the first one that brings colonialism up seemingly out of nowhere. There is a little bit of "Chan's story is not really about him, it's about... us! the Western people" euro-centrism here, IMHO.

Also, since everyone is naming their favourite Jackie Chan movie, have a look at Project A and Project A2, they're a lot of fun (A2 actually tackles some colonialism-related topics in passing).

I wouldn't recommend watching it. It's really missing a lot of the charm of the original.

I had to look it up, but I'm definitely referring to the first one in this case. I don't even think I've seen the second one!

Guess it's going on the list

They're good for kids because they are funny and full of action without being grim or dark. They're easy to follow, even for young kids, because of the lack of shaky cam and fast cuts.

They're good for adults because of all the crazy choreography and stunts.

Police Story is definitely my favorite!

Who Am I, First Strike, Police Stories, Armour of God, Mr. Nice Guy are all great, too.

I also really enjoyed his recent one with Pierce Brosnan— The Foreigner. It has a far more dramatic tone than the others, but it's great.

I was just commenting that a series of photos titled "Trapped" about an underclass living in coffin-sized bedrooms in Hong Kong, posted -- not by me, mind you -- in reply to your question "is there an underclass trapped there?" is both eye-opening and remarkably relevant.

Wouldn't you agree?

Heroes have a place, precisely because they inspire.

I get what you're saying, but in any system having an aspirational role model is a benefit!

If you or I went over to Hong Kong, and told them to work hard and they'll succeed, then get in my private jet and fly back to the US, they'd just roll their eyes. But Jackie Chan is one of them. He understands the culture and the challenges. All famous people do for their audiences.

I suppose it is easier to write and also easier to dismiss other people doing something you simply don't want to put in the effort to do so or are too scared to do.

of course this is just my observation

> 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?

I think this is the crux of the difference in viewpoint between you and who you're responding to:

> I have yet to see someone succeed in something they never start

It's reasonable to say that the will/drive/impetus/etc. to succeed is _necessary_ for success.

And because it is necessary, it's good to have heroes — makes sense to me.

But the other fellow is saying that while it may be necessary, it is not _sufficient_.

If you never play the lotto, you'll never win, it's true. But just because you do play doesn't mean you'll win either. Playing is necessary, but not sufficient.

How much you think it's valuable to parade around the winners and say "this could be you!" is, I think, proportional to how much you think an individual has control over the game they're playing.

For the lottery, it's easy to show that you have zero control, so parading around the winners (or "heroes") is a bit silly. For other types of success, it's less clear. But there is certainly a decent argument to be made that liklihood of overcoming structural and institutional biases is luck-heavy. If you think it's mostly luck, then hero-worship is not so valuable.

Certainly the biggest heroes in improving the human condition are not the successful outliers like Chan, but those who believe in equality and put the work toward furthering it. There is no slavery in the US any more, and the thanks for that does not lie with outlier heroes who happened to luck out in the slavery game.

What inner tools were those? From the article, it seems that it was a willingness to do extreme, mortally-dangerous stunts? Is that the lesson people should take away–forget about being successful unless you're willing to constantly put your life on the line?

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.

Is there something in that which is de-facto slavery? Isn't that a description of the circumstances of Jackie Chan's family? I would agree with you, that there is significant potential in such an arrangement for abuses, but it's not a simple black&white situation for instantly considered condemnation.

you can't sell the personal autonomy of another person, not even your children

Parents often override the personal autonomy of their children "for their own good."

I don't have all the answers. But certainly there's more to it than what we'd call kidnapping.

No disagreement.

No you don't. "The line should be firmly held at physical coercion," is meant as a statement of a baseline minimum. Principle of charity, please.

Mental coercion is a thing. Also, children (and often adults too) don't have the knowledge that there exist alternatives i.e. that they have choices.

Been there. I've been in the position of having a mob, powerful community leaders, and people with police connections arrayed against me, not knowing the law was actually on my side.

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?

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".

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.

Instead you and everyone else just compare themselves to him like you deserve his success. That's what's really going on here.

Kim Kardashian is indeed inspiring to a certain generation of kids. You can't see her as inspirational for the same reason, because you don't think she deserves the success but you do.

Of course. Read the whole thread as if I think the government should reserve that power. My position is that the government should use such power as sparingly as possible.

There are only two distinct choices - no government power over these conditions and therefore no regulation

False. There is a "dial" here. The question is how much government should intervene. In that, there are far more than 2 choices.

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.

Very often, the reality is quite nuanced. What are your feelings about parents who pressure children to practicing sports or music for long hours from a young age? How is such a school different? At what point should a 3rd party intervene?

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.

My reply does indeed answer the question, as to the part of the experience of such a child I could understand. In particular, I was severely abused by a classmate, and felt unable to ask for help. I felt a great many things about my experience, and I know this from my personal experience: The POV of the child is truly paramount. It can turn a voluntary contractual experience of privilege into a horrible coercive one, or something that someone might call "indentured servitude" into something positive. It may well be that what appear to be the exact same circumstances are one thing to one child, and the opposite to another, or that it's remembered as a mix of both.

My lived experience tell me this, and in light of that experience, your comments strike me less likely to be a genuine concern for and understanding of those experiences and more as a rhetorical tactic using people's protective feelings towards children.

As mortals, our experiences are limited. Having a good imagination and intuition allows us to extrapolate from these limited experiences to better understand the world we live in. Otherwise, discussions would be very limited and stilted indeed. Unless you never join in a discussion that you don't have direct (exact) personal experience in?

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?

> Happy?

No, I'm not happy. Since I know you understand the definition of "summary" (and, if in doubt of why I felt the need to summarize, you had my explanation of the context a few posts above, and you consistently ignored it), I can only assume you're trolling.

> 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

A counterargument to what!? You're demented.

I'm upset I wasted my time with a troll. I wish there was a way to report you.

Goodbye.