France ditches the name ISIS, replacing it with a label the group hates | Hacker News Reader

France ditches the name ISIS, replacing it with a label the group hates

washingtonpost.com

74 pointsdreamweapon50 comments

"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

[1] http://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/on-the-ori...

Arabic by nature doesn't have many abbreviations like other languages because of it's lack of vowels, so abbreviations end up being a set a consonants that are hard to pronounce and don't sound "correct", so we don't use them often. The name "Daesh" is an exception, it's an abbreviation (although one letter gets changed a little bit) and it does sound "correct" but although it does contain the words Islamic and state, it doesn't have for an Arabic speaker like me the same effect as ISIS have for an English speaker

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."

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)).

"The public is already aware of who "ISIS" is, and what they do."

The majority of people do, yes. However, you have to consider how powerful language is. Calling something by it's literal, and true meaning strips it of a lot of power to maneuver itself and what it means/stands for.

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

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.

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.)

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.

According to the Foreign Minister of the French Republic Laurent Fabius their point is

“This is a terrorist group and not a state," Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters last week, according to France 24. "I do not recommend using the term Islamic State..."

My point is that they are still, basically, calling it the Islamic State, but just in Arabic.

I counter that that simply doesn't matter.

Consider: if (1) ISIS doesn't like it, (2) Arab speakers use it derogatorily, and non-Arab-speakers either (3) don't know the etymology, or (4) understand the derogatory intent, I think Daesh achieves the goal of linguistically delegitimizing ISIS as a "state".

Apparently part of the reason they hate it is that it sounds like complete gibberish to arabic speakers and the abbreviation is usually said in a very derogatory tone of voice.

Are they not doing all the things they're doing for Islam's sake (misguided or not)?

Yeah, I would take their word for it that they are Muslims.

But in addition to being Muslims and generally really bad dudes, the principal thing they are doing is installing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the leader of a caliphate/country.

Al-Qaeda will publicly try to justify their actions using religious beliefs, ISIS does not try nearly as hard. I do not know if other Muslims consider ISIS "Takfir"[0] though.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama%27at_al-Muslimin ...in the Muslim world Takfir is "generally used as a derogatory description for extremists that kill Muslims without sufficient religious justification".

The way I see it is that journalists (directed by the French government in this case) like to use foreign terms to make the "enemy" more scary and different. We hear a lot about "jihad", "sharia", "burka", "fatwa" and now "daesh".

On a slightly offtopic note, thanks for revealing the name in the (current) top comment so I don't need to click through the article just to get that. I'm almost certain that the lack of the new name in the title is completely intentional to gain more clicks.

Yeah, I'm sure none of us would actually bother to read the article if the name was in the title.

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?

Not sure as "good example" but in France there is a major effort to rebrand "video surveillance" (CCTV) as "video protection".

Also labeling anti-Zionism as antisemitism or hiding an antisemitic rhetoric by claiming it's only anti-Zionism is quite common.

"pro-life", "pro-choice", "ObamaCare", "War on terror", "fiscally responsible" etc, pretty much any other term in the talking points of politicians.

During the Obamacare debate in Congress, the administration was very careful to always refer to the individual mandate penalty as a "fee" or "penalty", never ever a "tax."

But when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, they did so under the government's power to tax.

MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging. It used to be NMR or NMRI, but you know what people are like when they hear the word "nuclear".

Good example in which direction?

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."

"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.

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"."

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...

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

No, it isn't.

It is where I come from.

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.

It's (positive) propaganda, and propaganda is effectively a social hack. A part of the social hack is its technical impact , but it's interesting independent of it. (And I'd love to see more analysis of the impact and stickiness of the hack). Thanks for posting it.

Make them the laughing stock of the world and nobody will take them serious anymore.

As bad as the things they do are, it can't get anymore classy for a countermeasure. No war on whatever really helps the people, but this hopefully opens some eyes.

If anyone wants to jump on the band wagon for this new name, here is a start:

https://www.google.com/search?q=isis+daesh

https://www.google.com/search?q=isis+new+name+daesh

And perhaps the french could convince anonymous or 4chan to help out.

Is it propaganda or is it a honeypot?

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

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

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

What about just calling them Softcard?

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

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

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

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.

Did you read the article? That would be a good start.

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.

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

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."

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.

As a point of comparison, how do you feel about comments that Westboro Baptist Church is un-Christian?

I don't have any past experience as a Christian or know enough about Christianity to comment about that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com