Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

cardsagainsthumanityredistributesyourwealth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 200 posts

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#101

Post by strangecasts »

topmonk wrote: post #91
eutectic wrote: post #2

Why only consider within-country inequality (and, yes, I realize that the answer is 'because it's partly a publicity stunt, and humans are biased and parochial')? The average American is incomparable wealthy compared to the average African, and you can on average save a life for only a few $thousand to one of Givewell's top recommended charities.

The poorest countries all have something in common, which is overpopulation. It seems as if the poorest have enough offspring so that they are always on the edge of starvation. I wonder if by giving them additional money, so they can have more kids, and even cause a greater strain on the local environment, have we actually done a good thing? If there is an overpopulation of deer, we don't put big buckets of feed in t…

Education and better healthcare are correlated with lower birthrates.

Charity is very much better than doing nothing.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#103

Post by TehCorwiz »

Helloworldboy wrote: post #39
TehCorwiz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://youtu.be/ZVOD5D4IArw?t=164

I think you can draw some great parallels between Harvey Danger as a band and Cards Against Humanity as a card game. Harvey Danger - 1 successful song - Edgy and cringey (eg. "and I don't even own a TV", W E W) CaH - Fun for 1 hand - Edgy and cringey I guess Harvey Danger was bored, because they sure are boring.

It's funny you bring that line up, because a large number of people I know don't actually own TVs, most of them are laptop dwellers and use Netflix, Hulu, or other streaming services to satisfy their media needs. Don't forget that we live in the era of the 'cord-cutter'.

To expand on the original sentiment: experiences are what you make of them.

I think an adversarial game of CAH with you would be interesting.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#104

Post by jquery »

mikekchar wrote: post #70
mberning wrote: post #6

Wait... all these people paid $15 to begin with? Are you really that poor if you can flip out $15 for any little thing that comes along.

You may be suffering from the same thing I did: not understanding what this is about. I recommend taking a look at the FAQ (which is relatively difficult to get to from the original article): https://www.cardsagainsthumanitysavesamerica.com/#faq It's a "complicated promotion" and in this phase they are redistributing wealth to the poorest of the group who paid -- not to the poorest people in the country. I had origin…

Past college, living hand-to-mouth is in the USA is largely an issue of financial education and self-control. I was living hand-to-mouth when I met my wife, who made half what I did and had substantial savings. Get housemates instead of keeping a house to yourself. Get roommates instead of a room to yourself. Get rid of your subscriptions. And so on. Sustenance is remarkably cheap unless you're in poor health.

I blame this lack of financial education on our failing high schools and bad parenting. And a stigma against judging others for poor financial choices (I see people in this thread lauding the gifts the charity recipients plan to buy).

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#105

Post by dieterrams »

lobotryas wrote: post #97
FLGMwt wrote: post #31

Oh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing. I won't dismiss the fact that this is good PR for CAH, but it is still morally-motivated positive impact for some fixed number of people. A company took some profit they had and exceptionally distributed to some of their less fortunate customers. Don't immediate…

>objectively a Good Thing Could you please defend this assertion? They themselves admit that their redistribution method is flawed (see the FAQ). I see this as an empty publicity stunt and something that doesn't help in the least.

Hey buddy. Flawed != bad or net negative.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#106

Post by username223 »

rocqua wrote: post #42

This is a great thing. Truly, hats of too cards against humanity. I noticed something worrying about myself when reading these stories. A small voice in the back of my head judged a lot of these people. Those who say they will use it for gifts, travel or other things I apparently deem frivolous. It is not okay of me to think these things. These people deserve happiness, and these people can make their own choices. Th…

Reminds me of this classic track: http://www.metrolyrics.com/g00/underwear-goes-inside-the-pan...

Before you judge, ask yourself how you would spend the $15.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#107

Post by jquery »

geodel wrote: post #35
ridgewell wrote: post #12

>We excluded all Canadians. They already have universal healthcare. They’ll be fine. Yikes. I certainly got a laugh out of that, then an overly reflective period of what I'm grateful for, especially the benefits afforded from being north of the border.

Yep with healthcare taken care of, Canadians have nothing to worry about. http://www.macleans.ca/economy/congrats-canadians-youre-worl...

This entire thread is a disaster (which is why I flagged the story, it was low quality political bait). My account is old enough that I'm not violating the rules when I say HN is turning into reddit.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#108

Post by alphonsegaston »

jquery wrote: post #92
fjsolwmv wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banana and cotton plantations are capitalism. The US is wealthy because it extracted it's wealth from the suffering of others worldwide.

> Banana and cotton plantations are capitalism and? I never said capitalism didn't require any guardrails. Stop straw-manning other people. > The US is wealthy because it extracted it's wealth from the suffering of others worldwide. Why is Japan wealthy? South Korea? European countries? Is this the social justice theory of economics? There's not much evidence for that theory. It's pretty clear that capitalism (with a…

You’re right - war and oppression are tools used by Capitalists to secure and grow their wealth.

Japan, South Korea, and side swathes of Europe are wealthy because of their positions as client states in the American Capitalist Imperium.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#110

Post by FLGMwt »

electrograv wrote: post #78
FLGMwt wrote: post #31

Oh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing. I won't dismiss the fact that this is good PR for CAH, but it is still morally-motivated positive impact for some fixed number of people. A company took some profit they had and exceptionally distributed to some of their less fortunate customers. Don't immediate…

> Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable. I agree that positivity is important. Certainly, let us take a moment to genuinely appreciate what they’ve done here to help 100 people! Now, since this is such a good thing they’ve done on a small scale, let’s scale this kind of help to EVERYONE who is in need! That would be truly awesome. Oh wait, sorry — it looks like we can’t actually have that problem…

Hi! Thanks for responding!

I'll admit I was dismissive in my attempt at brevity so thank you for challenging me.

I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic.

On the topic of scalability, I might been too dismissive, but I'd rather focus on the positivity of the topic as a whole, lamoon its impact, even if localized, and then secondarily bring up the topic of scalability.

I was intentionally stark because I recognize HN as being highly volatile. Top-level commentary often controls the conversation and I'd rather validate the topic than waste nuance in pessimistic challenges.

Post reply on HN