4 ms·

If $1000 is life changing money for you, you have no business spending $15 on a lottery ticket, unless you are terrible at managing money, which might have some

by jquery 9y ago

If $1000 is life changing money for you, you have no business spending $15 on a lottery ticket, unless you are terrible at managing money, which might have something more to do with their situation more than living in the richest nation on Earth.

petercampanelli 9y ago
You're casting so much judgement here. Anyone can spend money on whatever they choose, just like the recipients can spend the $1000 however they like. We have no business criticizing these people.
- jquery 9y ago
  If Cards Against Humanity is going to demand wealth redistribution to support these people, you're goddamn right I can judge the financial choices of their champions.
  - FLGMwt 9y ago
    Hi. The "wealth distribution" is entirely at CAH's expense. They only surfaced that language because they made a point of communicating to the non-recipients that they wouldn't be receiving anything on top of their original contract (of getting the game for cash, which they totally got).
  - sctb 9y ago
    You've broken the guidelines a lot in this thread by commenting uncivilly and/or unsubstantively. Would you please re-read them and then stop? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
paulv 9y ago
Poor people are allowed to have fun, too. They "Deserve To Taste Something Other Than Shame", by Ijeoma Oluo: https://theestablishment.co/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-something-other-than-shame-90eb3aceabf9 https://theestablishment.co/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-som...
FLGMwt 9y ago
Thanks for the input! I realize I didn't clarify explicitly. While I'd agree that a one-time $15 gamble would be an irrationally exorbitant expense if it was in place of a family meal, I think we're talking about different things. Even if "poor people" were <$1000 away from financial ruin, $15 towards a reusable entertainment asset is quite different than $15 towards one-off lottery tickets.

by jquery 9y ago

petercampanelli 9y ago

You're casting so much judgement here. Anyone can spend money on whatever they choose, just like the recipients can spend the $1000 however they like. We have no business criticizing these people.

jquery 9y ago
If Cards Against Humanity is going to demand wealth redistribution to support these people, you're goddamn right I can judge the financial choices of their champions.
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  Hi. The "wealth distribution" is entirely at CAH's expense. They only surfaced that language because they made a point of communicating to the non-recipients that they wouldn't be receiving anything on top of their original contract (of getting the game for cash, which they totally got).
- sctb 9y ago
  You've broken the guidelines a lot in this thread by commenting uncivilly and/or unsubstantively. Would you please re-read them and then stop? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

paulv 9y ago

Poor people are allowed to have fun, too. They "Deserve To Taste Something Other Than Shame", by Ijeoma Oluo: https://theestablishment.co/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-something-other-than-shame-90eb3aceabf9 https://theestablishment.co/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-som...

FLGMwt 9y ago

Thanks for the input! I realize I didn't clarify explicitly. While I'd agree that a one-time $15 gamble would be an irrationally exorbitant expense if it was in place of a family meal, I think we're talking about different things. Even if "poor people" were <$1000 away from financial ruin, $15 towards a reusable entertainment asset is quite different than $15 towards one-off lottery tickets.