Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Idle

'Cards Against Humanity' Gives Out $1000 Checks (nbcchicago.com) 418

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."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Cards Against Humanity' Gives Out $1000 Checks

Comments Filter:
  • i am too poor.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    to send them 15 bucks, so i missed out on the thousand. gee, thanks, but the 'poorest' didn't get the check.

  • Misanthropy (Score:2, Insightful)

    These guys have a history of pretending to be misanthropic pricks because that's the theme of their card game.

    I see now they're acting like communists.

    Good to see the approach hasn't changed!

    • How is this any more communist then wealthy republicans donating to their causes?
      Actually the republicans donate more money then democrats do, often to help the poor and charities.
      It’s their money they can use it to buy a solid gold toilet or they can buy land to try to stop the government from spending money on a symbol to say we don’t like brown people.

      • >Actually the republicans donate more money then democrats do, often to help the poor and charities.

        really where are the numbers ? And relatively more or absolutely more ?

        • Re:Misanthropy (Score:5, Informative)

          by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Sunday December 10, 2017 @10:59AM (#55710807) Journal

          Here you go [philanthro...dtable.org]. 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

          • Re:Misanthropy (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10, 2017 @01:20PM (#55711399)

            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.

          • Re: (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!
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nhtshot ( 198470 )

            It's easy to say that when churches are considered "charities" and the republicans actively court every church goer they can find.

            This distortion is clearly evident from your own article, but ignored in your post. 40% of the way down the page is the breakdown, "Religion and Charitable Giving". The church-goers group gives slightly more than the non church goers to secular causes, but they dwarf everything else on the chart with their donations to the church.

            Don't get all holier than though about charity whe

            • It's easy to say that when churches are considered "charities" and the republicans actively court every church goer they can find.

              This distortion is clearly evident from your own article, but ignored in your post. 40% of the way down the page is the breakdown, "Religion and Charitable Giving". The church-goers group gives slightly more than the non church goers to secular causes, but they dwarf everything else on the chart with their donations to the church.

              Don't get all holier than though about charity when 70% of your "charitable" contributions went to a church.

              So, by your own review, the Church-goers still 'win'. And to accept your 'point', you would have to imagine that Church contributions go only to fund church operations. They don't. Church raised funds also go to charity operations both directly (food banks, for example) and indirectly (providing a meeting space- and building heating- for local groups like boys and girl scouts, AA, etc.)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This SJW bullshit is like a cancer, making all of my favorite sites political.

    Why is this story here? News for nerds? Nope. Stuff that matters? Nope.

    BTW, Max Temkin, co-creator of Cards Against Humanity is facing multiple allegations of rape. He uses his wealth to threaten to sue his victims.

    • Re: (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 y

    • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Sunday December 10, 2017 @05:29PM (#55712573) Homepage Journal

      Slashdot started up that way. Where were you?

    • Goddamn politics and the jerks who derail conversations by introducing them where they're not warranted. I hate it when I'm looking for a discussion about an art project that focuses on income inequality, but I find ad hominem attacks against the guy who runs the company that made the project. As we all know, the personal flaws of a single leader at a company taint everything that that company does, meaning that the company can never produce anything of value.
  • Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 )
    This is the best way to thwart a government. Non-violent, meaningful action works very well against tyrannical governments. History has two big prominent examples: Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Any actions that we can take to stop the Tump Bully Machine are good ones.
    • Government is necessary, and our government in particular should not be feared. The US government is made up of US citizens, duh? Why would I fear my fellow citizens? And I can point to boatloads of good our government has done. Were mistakes made? Of course they were. Nothing is perfect, but I'm still not crying out for it to be torn down, nor do I fear it.
    • >"This is the best way to thwart a government. Non-violent, meaningful action works very well against tyrannical governments."

      The summary looks like it is just a bunch of Socialists whining, to me. The main problem with government, especially the Fed, is that it is way, way, way too big.

      As now typical, it seems almost every day there has to be some kind of political article on Slashdot that has little or nothing to do with technology or "news for nerds."

    • "Non-violent, meaningful action works very well against tyrannical governments. History has two big prominent examples: Gandhi and Martin Luther King. "
      That's plain wrong. Gandhi and MLK argued against basically moral governments that needed to do certain things better.
      Try being Gandhi or MLK in Stalin's Russia, North Korea, Iran, or any number of other places, and you get slaughtered before more than 20 people know your name.
      Trump' s no tyrant. Literally no one is afraid of speaking out against him in any

      • Try being Gandhi or MLK in Stalin's Russia, North Korea, Iran, or any number of other places, and you get slaughtered before more than 20 people know your name.

        I read a story a few years back that speculated about what would happen with Gandhi if Germany had won WWII, and taken Britain's territories as spoils of war.

        It didn't turn out good for Gandhi.

        Just googled it, turns out to be The Last Article [wikipedia.org] by Harry Turtledove, 1988.

  • by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Sunday December 10, 2017 @06:06AM (#55709889)

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

    • If they want that, go to Europe.

    • 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!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hal_Porter ( 817932 )

        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 ob

        • If you have free stuff for poor people but no borders, all the world's poor will arrive to get their free stuff.

          That's why you feed them at home. Foreign aid programs are often corrupt, but they're a sound concept.

        • Most of those countries are poor because they had governments that pursued economically illiterate 'free stuff for the masses, screw the rich' policies.

          Well, to be fair when Chile tried that in 1973 the CIA murdered the President. [wikipedia.org]
          When Hondurans tried, American troops murdered a whole bunch of them so that bananas would be cheap. [wikipedia.org]
          So, maybe you're wrong.

  • by Kneo24 ( 688412 ) on Sunday December 10, 2017 @08:18AM (#55710227)

    You can't bitch about the government not having enough money to pay for healthcare, and then in the same breath proudly claim you're doing things to cost the government more money.

    • 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?

  • ...of the very, very fine line between clever and stupid.

  • A while back I heard about RollingJubilee.org [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.
  • Gift them the wall, require they pay for ongoing maintenance. That'll teach em.
    • You're in favour of allowing the government to come onto private property and build things against the owner's wishes?

      Are you a socialist, or a full-on communist?

  • make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for American taxpayers

    FTFY, because Trump isn't actually paying for it personally. It's kind of like keying your own car to get back at the dealership.

    IANAL but I would think that considering they've announced very publicly the exact reason they bought this land was to block the wall, it makes it much easier for the government case to take it back.

    I'm also finding very odd how they are taking all these political stances for some reason, as if a card

Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active. -- Leonardo da Vinci

Working...