Notices by the Lobdegg (thelobdegg@mastodon.social)

@dosnostalgic tbf the trademark owners, the Red Cross organization, loves to use the argument to divert anger away from them for protecting their trademark. Pretty normal in politics.

I can't believe I have to explain this to grown adults, but putting humanitarian aid emblems on humanitarian aid in a video game is not, in fact, a war crime.

Fun fact! The only humanitarian aid emblem that is covered by US trademark so far as I can tell is the red cross. So slap a nice red Star of David or Crescent Moon on your health pickups because the Geneva Conventions define humanitarian emblems as being multicultural and acknowledges not every one in the world is Christian.

For those curious the articles of the Geneva Convention only ban active combatants in a theatre of combat from using humanitarian emblems in order to trick non combatants or even enemy combatants into falling into a killzone as that would be a war crime.

It has been 0 days since I've heard a grown adult in the #Doom community blame the Geneva Conventions, a series of articles of international law with the intent of defining war crimes, for the legal actions of the American Red Cross, an American corporation who owns a trademark on what the rest of the world considers a humanitarian emblem, to protect its intellectual property.

Sorry for the rant but it drives me nuts how many otherwise perfectly intelligent people spread this misinformation without once thinking 'hang on, why would international war crime courts give a shit about some pos video game?'