zlacker

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.

>>chomp+(OP)
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 people", if you're more familiar with the history the Red Cross, you'll be remembering some scandals they've been involved with. Some of that is accountable to the fact that it's a gigantic organization and corruption is not unavoidable at such a scale. But also, the stakes are so very high that you'd hope they had a better handle on it.

>>chomp+(OP)
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.

>>TheSpi+n2
[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.

>>moron4+31
The bell ringing Santa Claus is the Salvation Army, unless they both do it.

>>TheSpi+n2
Gotta love how you misread their comment and then accused them of not reading what they wrote.

>>chomp+(OP)
> generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone

But didn’t that ship sail a century ago?

Since exactly everything related to medical services/material/staff uses a red cross in the physical world, isn’t it natural that it does in movies (or games)? Is the argument here that it can be used when depicting proper use (e.g war movie or war game) but shouldn’t be used more than that since that’s the rule in the real world? That at least makes some sense.

I have been an army medic myself with a red cross armband and while I knew that this was somehow related to the Geneva convention I wasn’t actually aware that it was the exclusive right of military medical staff. Every single gadget/vehicle/facility is plastered with the symbol so it sure feels like the generic “medical whatever” symbol.

>>alkona+Ni
Their logo is just the flag of Evil Switzerland, anyway

>>alkona+Ni
That's certainly not true in the UK. The British Red Cross use it, and the military presumably do in war zones, but everything else you'd think would have a red cross tends to have something else. White crosses on green first aid kits, blue star of life (or blue NHS logo) on ambulances, green crosses at pharmacies...

Not saying getting here from there is ready. But it may be possible.

>>MattRi+k8
Yep, that was pretty dumb of me.

I have a tendency to be needlessly antagonist sometimes.

I’m trying to improve.

>>pmyteh+Zz
Now that you mention it the same is what I saw: equipment had the cross on green while staff and vehicles used the white cross on a red circular bottom. I thought the choice was esthetic/camouflage but it’s the Geneva convention at work.