4 ms·

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 wh

by Crito 12y ago

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 12y ago
Well, seeing as this is the French who are using the term, I don't think you have to worry about pronouncing it.
- Crito 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - Crito 12y ago
      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.
zo1 12y ago
"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.

4 ms·

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 wh

by Crito 12y ago

colanderman 12y ago
Well, seeing as this is the French who are using the term, I don't think you have to worry about pronouncing it.
- Crito 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - Crito 12y ago
      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.
zo1 12y ago
"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.