You are the one demeaning the people there. Chan is the one inspiring them.
It's silly to think that everybody in Hong Kong is going to compare themselves to Jackie Chan and lament that they won't be able to do what he does. He's inspirational because he shows that you don't have to define yourself by your station in life and can change it. Chan is just the most visible symbol of it, but you can see similar stories all across the country.
Your daughter getting inspired by princesses isn't cruel because she'll never be able to be a princess. She can become more like a particular princess she likes, adopting personality traits and learning to think like her.
Using phrases like that excuses a system that keeps people oppressed by pointing to the outliers who manage to escape them. It's the old "lift yourself up by your bootstraps" argument.
We should recognize and change the system, not point people to the outliers and say "See, you can do it too!"
Chan's memoir can be inspirational, but we can also read into it - as the article does - and recognize the oppressive system and his luck in escaping it.
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!
I'm deeply skeptical of this. I don't want to assume your background, so please don't take offense to this. But I can only imagine someone is able to seriously believe this if they've never had anything more challenging than their own self-actualization and ambition.
You can (and should) believe in yourself as fiercely as you'd like! But the blunt reality is that hunger, poverty, disease and a lack of familial support structure will break you down unless you're astronomically lucky. If the most difficult thing stopping you from achieving your goals is your own belief in your ability to do it, you're in an exceptionally privileged position.
I think we miss the forest for the trees on HN quite a lot. The modal commenter here is most likely to be affluent with respect to their local environment and wealthy with respect to the world. We don't often have people commenting here to share experiences of the real obstacles someone like Jackie Chan had to deal with growing up.
I will say there is a benefit but whether it's a net benefit is not always true as we can't ignore the downsides.
For example, if everyone believes that you can just work hard and succeed, then they may choose to ignore the great disadvantages certain people have. Indeed this isn't just a philosophical issue as this is the reality even in American politics with regard to having social programs.
I think this is actually even true of people whose stories qualify them to become "heroes". Often because they were able to do something they think it must be possible for everyone else without realizing how many things were working in their favor. There's a psychological phenomenon describing how people who went through the same experience as you are actually less likely to help you because for whatever reason, they seem to remember it was being easier than it was.
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 think we agree with you regarding the inspiration that Chan brings to his people.
There is more than inspiration, sweat, tears, and blood that plays the part of viral success as Chan has achieved. Luck and opportunity are the missing pieces.
The phrase "if Chan can do it then anyone can" is victim to survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
To conclude: Chan achieved awesome things, he's an inspiration, it's good for others to strive for success, success is not determined on hard work alone.
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
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 tried just as hard to seize the opportunity and failed, because by failing they remained obscure.
So your observation is that because they seized the opportunity and did what it takes to succeed means luck wasn't involved?
Most of the times people who advocate for oppression are the people who benefits out of it. Like the caste system in India or slavery elese where
