Slashdot Mirror


'Cards Against Humanity' Gives Out $1000 Checks (nbcchicago.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In November "Cards Against Humanity" announced "a complicated holiday promotion" where people paid $15 for six surprises in December. (For the first surprise in the Cards Against Humanity Saves America promotion, "we purchased a plot of vacant land on the border and retained a law firm specializing in eminent domain to make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall.") The second surprise was the launch of a new podcast filled with positive news, and for the third surprise, they're redistributing the money people paid to join the event. "Most of our subscribers (about 140,000 people) got nothing today — they could have it worse. The next 10,000 subscribers received a full $15 refund of their Cards Against Humanity Saves America purchase. Finally, the poorest 100 people received a check for $1,000, paid for by everyone else."

A new web page shares stories from the grateful participants, and explains the site's careful methodology for determining who needed the $1,000 checks the most. ("We excluded all Canadians. They already have universal healthcare. They'll be fine.") It argues that wealth inequality is the biggest issue in the world, but "Our lawyers advised against our first choice — a campaign to eat all the rich people and live in their houses — so we settled for something more achievable."

25 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Virtue Signaling at its best. by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That anyone who gave $15 to such a group was, almost by definition, not 'poor'.

    This really looks like a big pile of 'how can we virtue signal the strongest', using other peoples money just to make it worse.

    I must actually listen to their 'positive news' podcast, to get a better handle on what they consider positive - I am guessing its just more self-ego-stroking from their self-selected echo chambers, but hey, I could be wrong.

    1. Re:Virtue Signaling at its best. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only sincere actions are the ones that align with your own political views. Everything else is just virtue signalling. Nobody does anything nice or altruistic, it's all purely to show off.

      Of course, complaining about virtue signalling in every single story about anything virtuous is definitely not virtue signalling. You are doing a public service, calling out wrong-doers, not showing off your cynical anti-do-gooder credentials.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Re:Walls work in israel by lucasnate1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm Israeli and I'm not sure if they do. We keep relying on palestinians to work inside our borders, and we are also racist to our arab citizens in a way that makes them identify with palestine more than they do with us.

    Maybe the wall has some benefit, but you can't just use it and magically forget about the people on the other side.

  3. Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure they've really thought this through.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure they've really thought this through.

      Care for everyone's needs and eliminate one of the biggest things we fight over? What a horrible place that would make the world!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have free stuff for poor people but no borders, all the world's poor will arrive to get their free stuff. If you raise taxes on the rich to pay for it all your rich people will leave to avoid them. If you print money to pay for it you end up like Zimbabwe or Venezuela. Or most of South America for that matter. Most of those countries are poor because they had governments that pursued economically illiterate 'free stuff for the masses, screw the rich' policies.

      As Milton Friedman observed "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state".

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The top 1% pay 27% of taxes now, compared to 15% in 1979 when tax rates were higher. Meanwhile their share of income has increased from 9% to 18%

      http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

      And the top 10% pay 72.7% of income taxes and 54.7% of all Federal taxrs. E.g. see page 7 here.

      https://cbo.gov/sites/default/...

      The top 20%, i.e. highest quintile, pay 86.3% of all income tax and 68.7% of all Federal taxes.

      On the previous page you can see how the effective tax rate rises with income quintile, i.e. from 4% to 25%.

      So how are the rich, at least the ones who remain, not paying their fair share?

      And of course given that it's highly rational for people who are US taxpayers to stop being US tax payers by giving up citizenship. And for people who aren't US taxpayers to avoid become US taxpayers at all cost.

      I.e. in general the US's progressive tax system is an incentive for rich people to avoid becoming US citizens or lose that citizenship if they have it.

      Meanwhile the US benefits system, sloppy enforcement of immigration rules and easy availability of fake Social Security Numbers to allow illegal immigrants to claim benefits.

      That's the problem with the left. Their intentions are good but they don't understand incentives. And if you get incentives wrong you won't get the result you want. See for example South American countries who ended up dirt poor despite electing politicians who had similarly good intentions to help the poor and tax the rich. And the end result was that you have countries like Venezuela and Cuba that would be pretty rich under a government that was only as bad as the US one. Actually the government is far worse and those countries are so poor people flee them for pretty much anywhere else.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  4. Re:Leading By Example by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they're serving as an example of what should be done on a broader scale

    Really? Get rich through invention, creativity and good marketing, then use other people's money to make grand gestures that benefit almost nobody?

    They come across as entrepreneurs turned pretentious pricks.

  5. Re:Unfortunate timing by zabbey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a "he said, she said" situation, how come "I feel like I was assaulted" is more valid than "I feel like I didn't assault you"?

  6. Re: Into the toilet by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, that's idiotic. I am totally against building a wall, but the Berlin wall was extremely effective. But Germany is tiny compared to what Trump is proposing.

  7. FTA about exactly this by doug141 · · Score: 5, Informative

    FAQ: I’m poor and I’m mad that I didn’t get any money.

    "Our bad. We had to guess how much money you had with limited data. The US government actually knows how much money you have and has trillions of dollars to redistribute. Why don’t you get mad at the US government?"

  8. Sounds like a favorite cause of mine by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A while back I heard about RollingJubilee.org. They purchase debt on the secondary market (did you know there is a secondary market for individual debt? I didn't know that before hearing of this group) for a small fraction of its face value and then forgive it. This includes lots of student loan and medical debt in particular.

    It so happens that this ends up being about as non-biased in its selection of debt as you can be, as well - the debts are bundled (like mortgages) which has the result of the group never knowing whose debt they are purchasing when they purchase it (until after they have it). Have you ever had a collections agency call you about an overdue debt? At that point your debt has already been sold at least once on a secondary market. This group comes in after that point to buy the debts that the first collections agencies have given up on. These debts are still valid when they buy them; they are legally entitled to collect on their full value if they want but instead they contact the debtors and forgive them.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Sounds like a favorite cause of mine by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Informative

      In June 2016 John Oliver bought up $15M of medical debt and forgave it. There's details and a clip in this Guardian article.

  9. Re:Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost Mo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Their goal was to prevent the wall being built, saving billions of dollars. If they can delay long enough Trump might run out of time or political capital to do it.

    Or did you think Mexico was paying for it?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Re:Lame promotion for their own lame game. by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hard not to notice how angry conservatives get when people who don't agree with them exercise their First Amendment rights.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  11. Re:Walls work in israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Wall in Israel dramatically reduced the number of murdered Israeli citizens by forcing the bombers and assassins through security checkpoints, where most are either caught or turn back.

    Of all the things you can complain about, having a wall that physically separates the Israelis from a group of people whom 60% want to genocide them is not one of them.

  12. Re:Misanthropy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here you go. A few interesting takeaways:

    1. Conservative households tend to make about 6% less than Liberal households, yet give 30% more to charity.

    2. There are more "big donors" (those who give over $1000) among Conservatives than Liberals

    3. In the 2012 Presidential election, the top 15 charitable States all voted for the GOP; the bottom 15 overwhelmingly (13 of 15) voted for the Democrats.

    4. Religious people (usually more on the Conservative side of things) tend to overwhelmingly give to charities as compared to non-religious

    5. Married people (who tend to be more conservative on average) give much more than unmarried people

    6. The US by far and away is the most charitable nation on Earth

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  13. Re:Into the toilet by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you played Cards Against Humanity? Have you ever thought that maybe there's some humor woven in to their actions?

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  14. Re:Lame promotion for their own lame game. by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only a conservative could be so reality-averse they are able to ignore the almost daily public temper tantrums thrown by the current US President while accusing liberals of being immature.

    Thanks for the chuckle.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  15. Re:Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost Mo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By that logic we shouldn't protest anything the government does because if it doesn't work out just wastes money. Money is clearly the most important thing here, a few million in litigation tops out of the billions being pissed away on this thing.

    Or maybe we could go really nuts and claim it's a subsidy to Mexico. A 30ft high wall is a massive stimulus program for 31ft ladder manufacturers south of the border.

    Also, well done calling my post retarded. Really adds credibility to your argument-by-Trump "it will definitely happen, and it will be easy" narrative.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  16. Re:Misanthropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does that 30% more to "charity" include tithes and other donations to their church? If so, then they are buying their places in heaven and donating to their local social club. A bit self serving in that type of charity.

  17. Re:When did Slashdot turn full SJW libtard? by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have it exactly backwards. Reality-averse conservatives have been trying to take over this site for about the past year and a half. The whole Right Wing Echo Chamber has moved in and set up shop.

    Your comment reminds me of those Christians who rant about "keeping Christ in Christmas" while they blithely ignore the fact that Christians stole the holiday. Even the most devout biblical scholars acknowledge there is absolutely no way Jesus was born anywhere near that time of year.

    So I'm sorry to correct you, but you are 100% wrong.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
  18. Re:SJW Bullshit by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Conservatives often get angry and vituperative when decent Americans resist them, no matter how peacefully it is done.

    Why does the idea that people exercised their constitutional right to buy and own property, then chose to use it as they are legally allowed to fill you with rage?

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
  19. Re:Misanthropy by hexadecimate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since supporting your religion of choice is "charitable giving" in the US, nothing you wrote is surprising. Subtract "charitable giving" to religious causes and -- surprise! -- secular and non-secular giving rates are about the same. Now...where do the majority of religious people live, as a percent of a state's total population? In which states do the majority of non-religious people live, as a percentage of total population? Argument skewing with statistics. Fun for everyone!

  20. Re:When did Slashdot turn full SJW by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot started up that way. Where were you?