
France ditches the name ISIS, replacing it with a label the group hates - dreamweapon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/17/france-is-ditching-the-islamic-state-name-and-replacing-it-with-a-label-the-group-hates/?tid=pm_pop
======
falsestprophet
"Daesh" is short for "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham", which means
Islamic State(or Nation) of Iraq and al-Sham (the Levant or Syria)... so
basically ISIS. [1]

So then, the point of view here is that you're not referring to it as a state
when you use words from a non-Western European language?

I think it would be better to spin it as an armed group serving it's
dictatorial leader, the "Caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, by calling it something
like "Al-Baghdadi's Army."

Much better to leave Islam, Iraq and Syria out of it.

Then you have at least one clear, achievable goal:
[http://imgur.com/UcIhJmU](http://imgur.com/UcIhJmU)

[1] [http://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/on-the-
ori...](http://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/on-the-origin-of-
the-name-daesh-the-islamic-state-in-iraq-and-as-sham/)

~~~
colanderman
I think the point is, as the article points out, moreso that the group hates
the name:

"The Associated Press recently reported that the group were threatening to cut
cut out the tongues of anyone who used the phrase publicly, and AFP have noted
that the term "Daeshi" has been used a derogatory term in some parts of the
Middle East. Some analysts have suggested that the dislike of the term comes
from its similarity to another Arabic word, دعس, or Das. That word means to
trample down or crush."

~~~
Crito
I'm sure they'd hate to be called _" The Coalition of Sissy Bomb-bait
Cowards"_, but that doesn't mean we should call them that.

The public is already aware of who "ISIS" is, and what they do. I see no
reason to introduce confusion (particularly with a word whose pronunciation
isn't even clear to all native English speakers (such as myself)).

~~~
colanderman
Well, seeing as this is the _French_ who are using the term, I don't think you
have to worry about pronouncing it.

~~~
Crito
Every argument in favor of the new term, that I have heard at least, is
language agnostic. They apply in English just as well as they apply in French.
I think it is therefore fair for me to offer my opinion on its use by English
speaking media.

And yeah, my insincere proposal got somewhat neutered by a few iterations of
making it less offensive to the innocent. I think my point came across though.

~~~
colanderman
Your "point" is a straw-man.

(Really, that name is ridiculous. "Daesh" is specifically chosen because _it
's already used_. I'm not arguing to call them something novel and
ridiculous.)

~~~
Crito
1) _One of_ the arguments in favour of using that term is that it offends
ISIS. It's not a strawman if people _actually are_ making that argument. I am
arguing against _that particular_ argument.

2) Daesh is not already used in English. I have absolutely no objection to
it's use in other languages; that does not effect me in the slightest so I
could not care in the slightest.

------
andrewtbham
I believe strongly in renaming things as an effective marketing and
positioning technique. Rebranding the inheritance tax as the death tax is a
good example.

Does anyone have any other examples?

~~~
eru
Good example in which direction?

~~~
andrewtbham
I think it's effective rebranding for those wanting to repeal the tax. Fyi,
I'm more interested in the marketing, than the politics.

So an example of the ineffective branding, from the book "positioning: the
battle for your mind", is high fructose corn syrup. They suggested rebranding
it to "corn sugar."

~~~
zo1
"Fyi, I'm more interested in the marketing, than the politics."

Well, depending on who you ask, those two are the same. Politicians market
themselves, their ideas, and their favoritism to their audience. They want you
to "buy" more of what they have to offer, as opposed to you "buying" their
competitors.

Now, whether they do it for a noble or greedy cause is open to debate.
However, not one either side is likely to win in any sort of reasonable time
frame.

------
colanderman
The same strategy gave us the term "Nazi", according to Mark Forsyth:

"[Nazi] was a derogatory term for a backwards peasant – being a shortened
version of Ignatius, a common name in Bavaria, the area from which the Nazis
emerged. Opponents seized on this and shortened the party's title
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, to the dismissive "Nazi"."

~~~
eru
You are sure it's not a play on the long established "Sozi" for
Sozialdemokrat?

EDIT: I just checked. It's both. See
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#Begriffsgeschichte_und_-v...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#Begriffsgeschichte_und_-
verwendung)

------
herge
Also, Daesh is a homophone with a french slang word for semen.

~~~
KevinBongart
No, it isn't.

~~~
surement
It is where I come from.

------
dreamweapon
I'm posting this on HN because what the French media are doing (according to
the article) amounts to something of an elegant SEO hack: if we all stopped
calling them by their wannabe 'Islamic State' moniker, and uniformly started
using the _Daeshi_ label instead, that would tend to force the search rankings
on their their various propaganda videos/websites down -- or force them to
start using it if they want their rankings to come back up.

Side note: Title abbreviated slightly to fit the 80-char limit.

~~~
AJ007
Is it propaganda or is it a honeypot?

~~~
darkstar999
Honeypot? How so? See who gets pissed off when you call them that?

------
Meczch
I'm all in favor of this move...give them what they deserve

------
Meczch
I'm all for this renaming!! Give them what they deserve

------
takeda
What about just calling them Softcard?

------
vernie
...and you won't believe what happens next!

------
carlob
This is exactly the contrary of what Berlusconi once proposed: "let's brand
all Fiat cars as Ferrari and their sales will soar".

------
lordlarm
What does the actual word "Daesh" mean and why do they hate it?

~~~
thinkpad20
The article explains that, but in your defense, it takes quite a while to do
that. It first mentions the word, and then doesn't explain its meaning or
significance until another five paragraphs have gone by. This was a poor
choice by the author, in my opinion.

------
genieyclo
A common refrain you read online lately is that ISIS is not Islamic, usually
by moderate Muslim apologists. The awkward truth however is that actually
moderate Muslims are really the unIslamic ones, and that ISIS is Islamic to a
fault. ISIS follows a very literalist and precise interpretation of Islamic
jurisprudence and tradition, whereas moderate Muslims trying to distance
themselves from ISIS are much more lax in this regard.

So Obama or the French government saying ISIS is not Islamic sounds pretty
silly and requires some serious cognitive dissonance on the part of all
involved in this charade. The fact of the matter is the Islamic State is just
that: Islamic. Muslims who play this doublethink game are finding it harder
and harder to keep all the contradictions in what their religion teaches and
the values they hold aligned.

~~~
IB885588
Yes, the excuse reminds me of the (very apropos today) No True Scotsman
fallacy:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

 _Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "I am
Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge." Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman
puts sugar on his porridge."_

~~~
zo1
I'm curious... Do the Scottish have a book that states whether or not a
Scotsman should eat porridge? Because if it does, and it's a book they follow
for their Scottish belief system, then that throws a spanner in the whole
comparison.

