zlacker

[return to "It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us"]
1. throwa+b4[view] [source] 2021-07-09 18:46:01
>>Tomte+(OP)
> 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 appropriating the red cross logo have caused these deaths, which is surely an absurd claim but I can't figure out what else they might mean.

EDIT: A lot of defensive responses. To be clear, no one is impugning the Red Cross or disrespecting the work they're doing. I merely don't understand the reasoning in TFA.

◧◩
2. dfdz+V5[view] [source] 2021-07-09 18:53:33
>>throwa+b4
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.

◧◩◪
3. throwa+F9[view] [source] 2021-07-09 19:11:41
>>dfdz+V5
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.
◧◩◪◨
4. blooal+Ak[view] [source] 2021-07-09 20:19:03
>>throwa+F9
Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. throwa+8m[view] [source] 2021-07-09 20:31:15
>>blooal+Ak
> Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.

Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are to persuade someone.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. blooal+bn1[view] [source] 2021-07-10 08:45:38
>>throwa+8m
I believe they're trying to convince folk that unapproved (over)use of their trademark "weakens the brand" in the minds of individuals enough that they worry it could lead to that symbol not affording the protection on the battlefield that it has traditionally enjoyed in the past, and therefore could lead to deaths which might have been avoided.
[go to top]