'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."
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."
i am too poor.. (Score:2, Insightful)
to send them 15 bucks, so i missed out on the thousand. gee, thanks, but the 'poorest' didn't get the check.
FTA about exactly this (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?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
So.... Republicans still give more..... (Score:3)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Charities are often scams on both sides. e.g. The Clinton Global Fund. Why did it's funding go dry the day the bitch lost?
When did Slashdot turn full SJW libtard? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:When did Slashdot turn full SJW (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot started up that way. Where were you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Typical republitard intellectual dishonesty and corruption. Purposely ignore all the content of your adversery's argument and concentrate only on the form. In other words: Don't like the message ? Shoot the messenger ! Problem solved !
Oh and don't forget to highlight all the hatefull parts of the adversary's message, while completely ignoring the hatefull parts of the message the adversary was replying to, like "SJW libtard", "SJW bullshit" and "cancer". So only right-wingers are allowed to use hatefull lan
Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"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."
Re: Sweet! (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Free stuff for poor people + No Borders (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure they've really thought this through.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want that, go to Europe.
Re:Free stuff for poor people + No Borders (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!
Re: (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 ob
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
People farming 5-10 acres are doomed anyhow. They survive nowhere in the modern world.
Increasing the average farm plot size should be a goal.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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/... [factcheck.org]
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/... [cbo.gov]
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
Re: (Score:2)
What is the "fair share" for the rich? Define "rich", and define "fair share" - otherwise you're just repeating a useless mantra...
PS: you do know that the US has claim to tax on EVERY PENNY you earn everywhere in the world, right? That it is the only industrialized nation to do so; if you are a German, you do not pay German income taxes on earnings in China. If you are French, you do not pay French income taxes on earnings in Brazil. But if you're an American, you pay US income taxes on every penny you
Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost More (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost Mo (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?
Re:Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost Mo (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
So you can bitch about the govt not spending money on healthcare, and waste the money they spend on wrong priorities
You can, but it's still pretty hypocritical. Government services cost money. If there's less of it to go around because you're purposely creating road blocks to quash initiatives that are more than likely going through, there will be less money to go around after those initiatives are completed, or become a continuous sunk cost. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than almost any other nation. Yes, the US government, excluding the private sector.
The problem with the US healthcare system isn't excessive stinginess by the government, it is excessive costs and excessive prices. And the ACA did nothing to address excessive costs and prices (because drug companies, lawyers, and doctors
Never a better example... (Score:2)
...of the very, very fine line between clever and stupid.
Sounds like a favorite cause of mine (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sounds like a favorite cause of mine (Score:5, Informative)
In June 2016 John Oliver bought up $15M of medical debt and forgave it. There's details and a clip in this Guardian [theguardian.com] article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"John Oliver, champion of wealthy doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and excessive medical costs in America."
[citation needed]
Counter citation: John Oliver buys $15M in medical debt, then forgives it [consumerist.com]. Is he perfect? No. But if you want to claim that he is the opposite of what the citation shows him doing then please be so kind as to give a reason for someone to think you didn't just pull that line out of your own posterior.
Build wall on their land, make them maintain it. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
SubjectIsSubject (Score:2)
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
Virtue Signaling at its best. (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.
Re:Virtue Signaling at its best. (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I do nice things all the time, frequently without anybody knowing (so it can't possibly be virtue signalling).
You're just a giant asshole and/or troll :)
Hope that helps.
Re: Virtue Signaling at its best. (Score:2)
Ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That comment about Canada, is actually what concerns me most about liberal politics.
They are poor people all over the world who are suffering. Some may not have the resources to manage the bureaucracy of a government healthcare system. This indicates if they have services available they will be fine, which is far from the truth. And sounds like we are trying to dump all the worlds problems on policy changes vs caring about other people.
Rules and policies are more or less are designed to take the poor pe
American, not liberal (Score:2)
That comment about Canada, is actually what concerns me most about liberal politics.
Total disregard for all foreigners is not liberal politics, it's American politics.
Re:Into the toilet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals would rather have massive Latino immigration rather than leveling the playing field with African and Asian immigration, who are mostly following the legal path.
Have you been looking to Europe lately, where they have exactly that?
Do you REALLY think that's better?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Liberals would rather have massive Latino immigration rather than leveling the playing field with African and Asian immigration, who are mostly following the legal path.
Have you been looking to Europe lately, where they have exactly that?
Do you REALLY think that's better?
Yes I have looked at Europe and it's not like that at all. Hundreds of thousands of "refugees" are coming in each year and public services are struggling to bear the weight, even in socialist paradises like Sweden where firefighters and ambulances need police escorts to even enter some neighborhoods.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany, for one, it is _impossible_ to find work without papers. Because the fines for the employers are high five figures for each illegal worker, plus very close monitoring for years after.
Europe doesn't have a fucking clue. They have only just _started_ to see flows on the scale the USA has had for decades. As you say, those flows are crashing the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by her looks, aardvark?
Re: (Score:2)
And guess what: That's African and Asians coming in legally.
Again: Wanna trade? Most people here would gladly do so.
Re: Into the toilet (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Into the toilet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Walls don't work" is a meaningless slogan. Instead assess how big an issue Latino immigration actually is,
Re: (Score:2)
You already paid him, that's what's important.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what happens when you try to play politics instead of minding your own fucking business.
I toss you into the toilet.
In a democracy, politics is every fucking citizen's fucking business. Not minding it leads to Trump and similar catastrophes, controlled by those that do mind....
Re: (Score:3)
A pure democracy will never work as there will always be way too many idiots wanting to tinker with the engine of civilization. They have no idea what a intake valve or piston is for, and they have protests about the unfair treatment of the bacteria trapped in the air filter.
Let me rephrase for people who prefer non-constructively narrow readings: In a republic ("if you can keep it", with apologies to Ben Franklin), politics is every fucking citizen's fucking business. Not minding it leads to Trump and similar catastrophes, controlled by those that do mind....
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever 'hacked' the DNC and Hillary is a hero!
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing this is a republic then!
See my other reply, but also see e.g.
Re:SJW Bullshit (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?
Re:Walls work in israel (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.
Re:Walls work in israel (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.
Re: (Score:3)
False (Score:3, Insightful)
Walls work temporarily, but eventually they fail. Look at all the walls of history, no ancient wall marks a modern border.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why weren't you saying the same thing when Obama signed his 800 mile border wall extension in 2013 ?
It's just trump is evil ?
Probably because in reality, what Obama [politifact.com] was doing was different, namely a measured and considered response that reflected a rational desire to mitigate harm that was based on acutal problems, and not the blatant hyperbole [axios.com] that Trump resorted [politifact.com] to, which is really Trump's own fault [nypost.com] because of his personal lack of temperance and desire to concoct imagined demons to fight. In fact, he himself rejected the fencing of the Bush and Obama days in preference to his own concrete edifice. Among other castigations.
You
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Not really.
How many of those people have the funds to defend against an Eminent Domain claim by the government?
I'm gonna bet it's someplace between "damn few" and "none".
All they've done is increased the amount of paperwork a bit. A nuisance at best.
So, sure, most of these people will be "compensated" some money when the land is seized. And that'll be the end of it.
Re: (Score:2)
And these people are liable for property taxes and the like...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not interested with the they will handle rivers that are half in Mexico and half in the US. The border runs down the middle.
Can't build in the middle very easily, but I suppose it's technically possible at great expense and ruining the river habitat. Can't build on the Mexican side, obviously. If you build on the US side you effectively ceed the river to Mexico.
Re: (Score:3)
So what is the plan, cede the land to Mexico? Because if you build the wall close to the border and make it unpassable, it's gonna be pretty difficult to stop Mexicans on the other side simply using it as their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Piranha fish!
The real answer is EU style work papers and fines for employers. The wetbacks will go home on their own when they can't find work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leading By Example (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they be different than others who pretend to be "philanthropists" because they "gave" a fraction of a percent of their income to some investment disguised as a good deed?
Mostly 'cause it gave them a tax break, anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that...
Re:Unfortunate timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can read it without logging in here: http://webcache.googleusercont... [googleusercontent.com]
Her response here: http://webcache.googleusercont... [googleusercontent.com]
I don't think we can draw any conclusions from this. She offers no details and no-one else has come forward with similar experiences or corroboration. Since she has chosen to not take the matter up with any authority and Tempkin has decided not to sue, we will likely never get any investigation or facts.
This is why it is so important that those in authority are approachable, that the
Re: (Score:2)
"Things women do lie about: what they ate for lunch. Things women don't lie about: rape."
-- Lena Dunham, Aug 5, 2017
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the ones crying the loudest about morals are also the worst offenders? It's almost like they're just like the right wing religious nutjobs that get caught cheating on their wife with some guy in a public toilet...
Re: (Score:2)
but we know now from Weinstien, Franken, Laurer, and all the rest that the loudest voices for women are always the worst offenders.
You mean the ones crying the loudest about morals are also the worst offenders? It's almost like they're just like the right wing religious nutjobs that get caught cheating on their wife with some guy in a public toilet...
Which goes to show that on all sides of the political spectrum, the sorts of people who get into politics, especially national politics, are possessed of a type of narcissistic self-superiority that exempts them form the very things they try to force on others.
There are plenty of good hard-working liberals who just think that what they do, who they marry, and who immigrates into the US shouldn't really trouble the government very much, just like there are plenty of hard-working conservatives who think that
Re: (Score:2)
How about making terms in Congress akin to jury duty? You get selected and bam! You're in congress for 2 years. Or perhaps not congress but your local city/county/state government. Make it a burden. OR, once someone is elected into office, they don't get paid their salary. They get a house, transportation, clothing, food, basically what you get when you're in the military, and a small monthly stipend. Then, when their term is up, their constituents vote on how well they represented them, an "approval
Re: (Score:2)
How about making terms in Congress akin to jury duty?
It would be simpler to just repeal the 17th. That really screwed the citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're shaming those homosexuals that are shaming homosexuals.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem there. And I actually also don't have a problem with him getting fucked by some big cocked black guy in his favorite public toilet.
I have a problem with him claiming some moral high ground and spouting bullshit like how fags are going to hell. But I'm sure his god will forgive him, he always does to the real believers, no matter what kind of asshole they really are.
Re: (Score:2)
Build the wall up to the edge of that plot, then pass a new law saying property owners are legally and financially responsible for any illegal immigrant that they willingly allow to use their land as an entry point.
Of course, the government will instead just sue the block of land-owners, and the case will be less difficult than the rest of the places where a family has "owned the land for 150 years".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lame promotion for their own lame game. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard not to notice how angry conservatives get when people who don't agree with them exercise their First Amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never commented as an "Anonymous Coward", and I doubt I ever will. The tactic you suggest is deeply dishonest, and the fact that you would accuse somebody of behaving that way says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Re:Lame promotion for their own lame game. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Richer idiots than you, apparently
Snicker
Re: (Score:2)