6 ms·

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_a

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-warehouses-1.401624 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/

trollman5000 5y ago
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.
Vaslo 5y ago
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.
- addicted 5y ago
  Except they aren’t claiming that it’s only video games. They’ve only mentioned it as one avenue of misuse.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Is there any evidence at all that misuse from video games or any other kind of media have contributed to any of these fatalities?
    - jagrsw 5y ago
      I guess the reasoning is as follows: Ignoring or being ignorant about visual signals associated with live/health threatening objects/situations (Red Cross sign, high voltage logo, radiation/pathogen/hazards logos etc.) undoubtedly cost(ed) lives in the past, and actions which are contributing to confusion about those signs should share some part of the blame, instinctively proportionally to their public influence. I think I can live with this approach, if we don't stretch it too far. It's not unthinkable to conceive a scenario in which this symbol is misinterpreted, loss of health or life or property follows, and the ignorance of the perpetrators cannot be pinpointed - maybe it'd be lack of proper education, maybe missing classes during military training, maybe seeing red-cross logo misused in games, maybe bad memory - the thing is that all of those explanations are IMO "reasonable", so we might want to do at least something about each of those (if possible).
- MattRix 5y ago
  The claim is not only about video games. And it makes more sense to be proactive about protecting their brand, rather than only reacting once an issue arises. Also how would you even prove such a connection? What combatant is ever going to say “I’m sorry, I shot you because I thought you were the enemy’s medic and not the red cross due to decades of brand dilution”.
throwaway894345 5y ago
Not seeing where videogames caused these...
- MattRix 5y ago
  Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue, and not be proactive? And how would you ever prove such a thing?
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue I'm asking "are they insinuating that appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths that they cited". > And how would you ever prove such a thing? Presumably *if* they are alleging a causal relationship between trademark appropriation and violence against personnel they have some reason to suspect that the causal relationship exists.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      The logos of the Red Cross, among a few others, are specifically mentioned in international law, including the Geneva Conventions. Firing on vehicles or personnel displaying the logos is, unless they do some very specific bad things, a war crime. There are a number of incidents mentioned in the post and in this thread where Red Cross workers were injured or killed by combatants. Do I have any reason to believe any of them involve "appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths"? No, although I would believe that the defense in most cases would be "a mistake was made". But the Red Cross (and a lot of other people) have good reason to defend those logos. International Humanitarian Law (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home): "Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy." "Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy." "Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy." "Rule 59. The improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions is prohibited." (The Red Cross logos are such distinctive emblems.)

trollman5000 5y ago

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.

Vaslo 5y ago

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.

addicted 5y ago
Except they aren’t claiming that it’s only video games. They’ve only mentioned it as one avenue of misuse.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Is there any evidence at all that misuse from video games or any other kind of media have contributed to any of these fatalities?
  - jagrsw 5y ago
    I guess the reasoning is as follows: Ignoring or being ignorant about visual signals associated with live/health threatening objects/situations (Red Cross sign, high voltage logo, radiation/pathogen/hazards logos etc.) undoubtedly cost(ed) lives in the past, and actions which are contributing to confusion about those signs should share some part of the blame, instinctively proportionally to their public influence. I think I can live with this approach, if we don't stretch it too far. It's not unthinkable to conceive a scenario in which this symbol is misinterpreted, loss of health or life or property follows, and the ignorance of the perpetrators cannot be pinpointed - maybe it'd be lack of proper education, maybe missing classes during military training, maybe seeing red-cross logo misused in games, maybe bad memory - the thing is that all of those explanations are IMO "reasonable", so we might want to do at least something about each of those (if possible).
MattRix 5y ago
The claim is not only about video games. And it makes more sense to be proactive about protecting their brand, rather than only reacting once an issue arises. Also how would you even prove such a connection? What combatant is ever going to say “I’m sorry, I shot you because I thought you were the enemy’s medic and not the red cross due to decades of brand dilution”.

throwaway894345 5y ago

Not seeing where videogames caused these...

MattRix 5y ago
Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue, and not be proactive? And how would you ever prove such a thing?
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue I'm asking "are they insinuating that appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths that they cited". > And how would you ever prove such a thing? Presumably *if* they are alleging a causal relationship between trademark appropriation and violence against personnel they have some reason to suspect that the causal relationship exists.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    The logos of the Red Cross, among a few others, are specifically mentioned in international law, including the Geneva Conventions. Firing on vehicles or personnel displaying the logos is, unless they do some very specific bad things, a war crime. There are a number of incidents mentioned in the post and in this thread where Red Cross workers were injured or killed by combatants. Do I have any reason to believe any of them involve "appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths"? No, although I would believe that the defense in most cases would be "a mistake was made". But the Red Cross (and a lot of other people) have good reason to defend those logos. International Humanitarian Law (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home): "Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy." "Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy." "Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy." "Rule 59. The improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions is prohibited." (The Red Cross logos are such distinctive emblems.)