He's suggesting that his friend may not be a hacker simply because it depends on "how much he likes to hack". My issue with that is two-fold: 1) it introduces the idea that being a hacker requires some form of external judgement and 2) it contracts his initial point that playing is hacking.
That said, it's possible his friend specifically did not enjoy eating with two sets of chopsticks in one hand.
"It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are not, you'll quickly be labeled bogus). See also wannabee."
I think it's reasonable to judge that a fooer is someone who often engages in fooing rather than someone who has fooed once, for a number of values of foo — a dancer is someone who dances frequently, presumably because they like dancing, not someone who has danced once; a gardener is someone who gardens regularly, probably as a living, not someone who once pulled a weed; and similarly for values of foo including "paint", "box", "bricklay", "drum", and "hack". In none of these cases does it imply that the status is contingent on somebody else's judgment.