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

It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

redcross.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 253 posts

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#101

Post by crooked-v »

thrower123 wrote: post #83
Justsignedup wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol t…

This only works with people who follow your rules of warfare. Otherwise, the red cross symbol just becomes a huge target painted on you.

People do in fact generally (but not always) respect the neutrality of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, including in current conflicts between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan, where they've had access to prisoners from both sides and run landmine injury rehabilitation centers.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#102

Post by trollman5000 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #95
throwaway894345 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?

Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/

We're talking about video games causing this, retard. One of your examples was an apparent mistake. One was done before video games. And one was done by Israelis.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#103

Post by bregma »

tines wrote: post #2

Not to detract from the message here, but > It may just be a game to you but, it means the world to us The placement of that comma really irks me. Isn't "It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us" the grammatically correct form? I'm somewhat surprised to see this in official communication from the Canadian Red Cross group. I feel like I've seen this "post-but" comma more and more recently. I guess pe…

For consistency it should also be "it mean's the world to us". Grind all my gears at once.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#104

Post by throwaway894345 »

dfdz wrote: post #43
throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…

I think this quotation best summarizes the article "When someone misuses the red cross,(the video game industry being just one of many), we seek their cooperation in ending the unauthorized use" The red cross is a protect trademark so this seems reasonable.

Right, but they could make that point without invoking the deaths, so presumably they're engaging in some kind of persuasion about why it's important to respect their trademark.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#105

Post by camjohnson26 »

Justsignedup wrote: post #54
throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…

IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol t…

They should probably create a more distinctive logo to avoid that, it’s a lot easier to think the Red Cross is public domain than something more distinctive.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#106

Post by SamBam »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #72
chomp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to violence.

This is an extraordinary naive comment. Claim is stronger than insinuate . claim: verb (used with object) to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due insinuate: verb (used with object) to suggest or hint slyly Sometimes one is forced to wonder if some people actually read what they write, or listen to what they say.

[Claiming/insinuating] that using the Red Cross as a generic logo dilutes its symbolism, which could potentially lead to deaths is clearly a weaker statement than [claiming/insinuating] that its use in video games has caused specific deaths.

It doesn't matter which the verb is, the second half of the first sentence is a much weaker, and more defensible, statement than GP's "vague insinuation" of a concrete incident.

No, they are not insinuating that the use of the Red Cross in video games can be directly tied to specific deaths. Yes, they are insinuating, fairly clearly, that making the logo generic could lead to less recognition of the unique neutral status of the Red Cross, and this gradual loss of recognition could potentially lead to more deaths.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#107

Post by camjohnson26 »

moron4hire wrote: post #50
chomp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to violence.

Putting those two sentences together is how you insuate such a thing. EDIT: There's a really big issue here with the public perception of the Red Cross. I expect most people think of the Red Cross as a purely benevolent organization. They're the folks with the bell-ringing Santa Clauses, for example. Who can argue with Santa Claus? So while most people are going to see this as "don't pick on the little, helpful peopl…

The bell ringing Santa Claus is the Salvation Army, unless they both do it.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#108

Post by scarby2 »

Justsignedup wrote: post #54
throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…

IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol t…

> If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and throw a grenade that way.

The red cross is used by the enemies medics. It's one of main allowed uses.

The issue comes with a distinction not commonly used in video games, true medics using the red cross as a logo are designated non-combatants, while they are armed they are only to use their weapons in protection of themselves or their patients and under no circumstances are they to directly engage in offensive military operations.

It's also part of the reason why combat medics in the US no longer use the symbol, without it they can act offensively

Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance or shooting a medic.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#109

Post by Vaslo »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #95
throwaway894345 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?

Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/

So there were video games in 1935 that caused the Dolo air strike? I think the issue is around why (or whether) video games cause this, not if there were ever assholes who tried to bomb them.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#110

Post by crooked-v »

mushufasa wrote: post #31
bingidingi wrote: post #14

The green cross is generally the recommended alternative. Note that this isn't normal copyright, the red cross is protected under the Geneva Conventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_R...

If video games or art or movies are depicting the appropriate scenarios, such as a scene involving army medics, wouldn't that be a constructive use of the symbol? It would spread awareness and education. A green cross would confuse people.

> such as a scene involving army medics

This is actually a completely inappropriate scenario. The point of the Red Cross symbol is that it indicates an internationally neutral organization that is very specifically not associated with any country.

Post reply on HN