Weihans comments

Posted in: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash See in context

Likeitis:

If Chinese are psychologically strong-willed and mature like real adults (as opposed to adult-children), then they should be good at self-policing. But since, like you said, Chinese (Chinese leaders included) are not very good at self-policing, they probably need an outside force to police for them. This is exactly the same thing many invaders of China have said.

It almost sounds like you are implying that current leaders in China are not Chinese. If they are Chinese, then they cannot be "trusted to NOT be chaotic."

If "chaos" is partisan fighting, then China is definitely very orderly because you only have one or two voices. But if "chaos" is cutting in line and pushing and shoving in public and injustice and corruption, then China is already very chaotic. I feel I can say that because I have lived in China before.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash See in context

likeitis:

Oh, I got an idea, why don't we let Mr. Chan, as opposed to the people, handpick the authority figure because he seems to know who is most able to run the country? It would save an awful lot of time, elections always take a long time.

But then here's my question, what are Mr. Chan's criteria for such a position?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash See in context

likeitis:

You got it all wrong. The question is not whether we need authority or not. The question is, rather, how to choose and who gets to be that authority. That is the core of the argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash See in context

Mittsu:

I feel you. I felt like I was in a zoo when I was in China (not that I have anything against animals because I am an animal too). The people treat each other like shit, no kidding, except for the people that were with us, which were extremely nice and polite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash See in context

likeitis:

Yes, common ground may not ensure peace and harmony. But I can tell you this with certainty: having no commong ground will never ensure peace and harmony if the people are to live together. That's not my opinion, it's how we define "not having common ground." Here, I thought I might share you a quote: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor." With that said, there may be something in the world that is higher and greater than your short-lived peace.

To me, your statement that the "Chinese are, as a people, very entrepreneurial and very quick utilize any advantage they may find..." is nothing more than a euphemism for "the Chinese people are myopic." But still, I wouldn't go as far as to call that myopia "entrepreneurial." I hate to say this, but I think you need to get a dictionary and study the words carefully before you use them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash See in context

This message is for likeitis.

I agree with some of the things you said. But it sounded as if you had lost faith in the Chinese people by implying that the Chinese people had no common ground. Because they had no common ground, chaos would be certain to follow if they were set free. I am confused here. I don't know what kind of chaos you had in mind. Was it war? Was it disrespect? Or was it corruption and injustice?

Why did every Chinese man dream of becoming an emperor himself? What caused a dynasty to fall? Maybe injustice and the fact that some people (such as the emperor and government officials and rich citizens) had more freedom than others had something to do with the chaos that we see happen in Chinese history. Maybe, I'm just saying maybe, if you gave freedom to everyone, there wouldn't be as many people killing over that one position, the society would be more open and just, resulting in a more stable and harmonious nation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash See in context

Another dickhead who thinks he's better than some people and so has the right to control them involuntarily.

Jackie, you've let me down completely. I used to be your loyal fan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash See in context

There's no question that we need some kind of authority to protect everyone's freedom. In a free society, yes, everyone can do whatever he/she wants to do, but he/she just has to live with the consequences, like going to jail or paying a fine. That's the notion of freedom in a nutshell.

I respect Chan a lot as an actor and director, but not as a human being. Chan himself has reaped the economic benefits of a relatively free society/market. Moreover, he himself has enjoyed the freedom that came with his "achievements" and his superstar status, not realizing that not everyone is as talented and smart and as lucky as he is.

In an authoritarian society, those being controlled are the majority and those controlling others are the minority. Those being controlled would either want to move up the social ladder to become the controller in the long-run or develop some kind of "guanxi" with the controller. This would actually create more chaos underneath the calm surface. This chaos is sometimes associated with corruption and injustice, among other things. Maybe we can never get rid of this chaos, but we can certainly minimize its effects on the society.

Last but not least, I am a Chinese and I do not want to be controlled involuntariy. I would live a middle-class life in a relatively free society rather than lead a super wealthy life-style in China. I like to see everyone respected and have a reasonable amount of freedom, not just the rich and the powerful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.