Does this post hold currency? March 5, 2012 2:44 AM   Subscribe

I hate being that guy, but I'm going to beg an explanation of why this post is allowed to stand. It's a couple of wikipedia links and a tiny news blurb strung together in a highly ax-grindey way, complete with a sprinkling of anti-Iran sentiment.

The "nuclear option" non sequitur is just some sort of shit icing. About half of the comments are discussing the quality of the post, and the poster is in there moderating the thread, even declaiming themselves as "not a Ron Paul supporter or a gold bug." Admittedly this is the poster's first contribution to Metafilter, but are we using kid gloves now? I'm trying to find the content here, but the whole thing just strikes me as noise.
posted by mek to Etiquette/Policy at 2:44 AM (118 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

From our side, it hasn't been flagged much, and as far as the thread goes, the comments that have been flagged don't have to do with the post content but with taking exception to stuff like the term "USian," etc., plus one over the top deleted fuck-them-all comment that concluded with a "bullet-in-the-head" remark about Ahmadinejad.

I agree that there is way too much "My-Opinion" editorial voice in the original post, and I'd advise the OP to stick to a much more objective style for any future news related posts. The "nuclear option" bit, especially, seems like a weak joke that could definitely have been left out.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:41 AM on March 5, 2012


I see that Jessamyn visited the thread last night, and pruned some comments. I don't really think that the poster can be characterized as "moderating the thread," leaving only a few comments. I'm guessing no one flagged the thread enough to merit deleting it.
posted by crunchland at 3:43 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


I wish that the post had been more clear, writing as somebody who does not understand the issue one whit.

'm sad to see the 'fuck Iran' comments. Sheesh.
posted by angrycat at 3:43 AM on March 5, 2012


I'm trying to find the content here

It seems you're not trying very hard as it was sort of spelled out for you:

It's a subject for debate whether the highly volatile petrodollar was ever intended to serve as a de facto substitute for the defunct gold standard.

It seems most of the people who participated in that thread got that and made comments accordingly. Jessamyn - herself a gold-standard - popped up somewhere mid-thread so it's not like it was under the radar.

Obviously any post that mentions Iran is going to attract a fair amount of prejudiced nonsense and the mods are going to have to dance with that for the next few months at least - hopefully erring on the side of tolerance and diversity of opinion.

I agree that it's not the best-crafted FPP and it is bad form for any poster to participate in her own thread, but you got to give a first timer a little latitude.

Chin up aydeejones. If you don't end up here in the grey woodshed once and a while and if you aren't making posts that get deleted now and again, you aren't really making an effort. It is easer to learn by doing than by lurking. Keep trying.
posted by three blind mice at 3:46 AM on March 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


"I hate being that guy"

Bro, what the hell?!
posted by That Guy at 3:53 AM on March 5, 2012 [43 favorites]


Five bucks for that, eh?
posted by gman at 3:59 AM on March 5, 2012 [7 favorites]


That's what your momma said!
posted by That Guy at 4:09 AM on March 5, 2012 [9 favorites]


Blatcher, for sure.
posted by gman at 4:11 AM on March 5, 2012


Hell no, not that guy.
posted by That Guy at 4:13 AM on March 5, 2012 [5 favorites]


Nuclear option? I am more worried about cmyk's call for the Solar Option.

Former FPPs have shown us that this is a plan that is unlikely to go well.

More seriously, the amount of knee-jerk in that post left me with a vicarious leg pain and a tired feeling.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:29 AM on March 5, 2012


That dance wasn't as safe as they said it was.
posted by adamdschneider at 5:52 AM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Bro, what the hell?!
posted by That Guy at 6:53 AM


Joined: March 5, 2012

ಠ_ಠ
posted by empath at 5:57 AM on March 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


Personally, I think we need more MetaFilter posts pointing out that you can remember how to pronounce that guy's name by thinking of the sentence "I'm a dinner jacket".
posted by Curious Artificer at 6:04 AM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Joined: March 5, 2012

Yeah, if the user already existed that merits a funny. But creating it just for the joke, not so much.
posted by scalefree at 6:50 AM on March 5, 2012


Eponysterical?
posted by symbioid at 7:24 AM on March 5, 2012


Did not like the post terrifically but the conversations were sort of worse than the content with the exception of the link to a racist site that t we swapped out at the OPs request. We all looked at it and felt that there were people who were discussing the topic and it wasn't doomed so we sort of kept an eye on it as it was going. Not a great thread. It was the user's first post and went up at a time when we were around to keep an eye on it so that's what we did.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:34 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Hey...leave that thread alone...it's the only time I've ever been able to make a Johnny Dangerously reference in a MeFi thread.
posted by spicynuts at 7:52 AM on March 5, 2012


NO MORE NODDIN'
posted by overeducated_alligator at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2012


> plus one over the top deleted fuck-them-all comment that concluded with a "bullet-in-the-head" remark about Ahmadinejad.

As hateful, bigoted, and idiotic as his comment was, I kind of wish it was allowed to stay so there's a visible record.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:46 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


That's why I didn't flag it - when someone tells you who they are, etc.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:08 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


There have been a couple of editorialising posts/remarks being allowed to stand in recent memory. I know there's a couple more that I can't find because I just flagged and moved on.

We also had this particularly egregious example of axe-grinding, inflammatory, misleading headline that should have been nuked on sight. Instead it was allowed to stand because nobody really gave a shit and we were too busy getting our GRAR at authority on.

Anecdotally, it's been ages since I've clicked into a post from my Google Reader feed getting the red box.
posted by Talez at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2012


whose was it.
This is why I wish the deleted comments weren´t. Couldn´t they just be obscured so that you had to click through to see them or something.
posted by adamvasco at 9:40 AM on March 5, 2012


We also had this particularly egregious example of axe-grinding

We've actually spoken to jeffburdges about toning down the rhetoric somewhat in his posts. He consistently posts about interesting stuff but in these rage-inducing ways.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:42 AM on March 5, 2012


This is why I wish the deleted comments weren´t. Couldn´t they just be obscured so that you had to click through to see them or something.

Honestly, making sure people can know who to think is an x-ist jerk is not super high on our priorities. If someone says something stupid as a one-off, let it be a one-off. If they make a habit of it, they'll acquire a reputation regardless of the visibility or not of a given shitty comment.

If the context suggests it'd make more sense to leave a crappy comment in place than to try and clean up, we'll do that, but a lot of the time nixing it means less thread derail and drama and that's a pretty overarching goal most of the time.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:45 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


> whose was it.

Someone who frequents Metatalk, so I suppose I'll let him out himself if he cares enough to own his statements.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:48 AM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


We've actually spoken to jeffburdges about toning down the rhetoric somewhat in his posts. He consistently posts about interesting stuff but in these rage-inducing ways.

Which is awesome and I'm thankful for it but still the same question remains:

Why even let stuff of this quality stand?

Does this mean we're giving the green light on editorialising in posts now? Can I write "Mitt Romeny (what a dickhead)" next time I mention him in an FPP just because the MeFi community is going to largely agree with me?

It's really insulting to get back "NOT ENUFF FLAGS LOL" as a reason not to delete a shit post.
posted by Talez at 9:56 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


If I had known it was irritating you this badly, mek, I might have flagged that post myself even though I am very much an anti-deletionist, because it isn't worth the risk of alienating you from Metafilter, but I did get something-- quite a bit, really-- out of reading it and thinking about what it would take to dethrone the American dollar.
posted by jamjam at 9:56 AM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Why even let stuff of this quality stand?

We actually depend a lot on the community to provide prompt feedback on stuff they think is problematic. At a certain point, we have to hear from folks when something they think is problematic is happening for us to be able to take a look at it on those terms. Stuff that we just literally don't hear anything about and don't happen to see ourselves (and we do not and cannot see everything on the site, it is far too busy for that) may pass by without note.

In some cases this could be a crazy set of coincidences letting something really awful go without note. In more cases it's likely that folks generally aren't finding something objectionable as a large group, which may be more of a "different people think different things are terrible" situation where I sympathize with your frustration but am left pointing to the fact that this is a big place with a very heterogeneous userbase that may mostly not agree with your preferences in some cases.

It's really insulting to get back "NOT ENUFF FLAGS LOL" as a reason not to delete a shit post.

Having anything we've ever said about this characterized as "NOT ENUFF FLAGS LOL" is pretty insulting in its own right.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:02 AM on March 5, 2012 [5 favorites]


I'll out myself. It was my comment. It was shitty and I was pissed. I apologize for it and for any offense given. I have an irrational hate on for that area of the world right now, and most of it is aimed at the current regime. I got mad at someone accusing me of being a jingoist, since my motivations for hating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has nothing to do with my patriotism (or lack there of). It wasn't one of my better comments and I'd retract it and rewrite it if I could. At the point it was removed I decided it was best for my blood pressure and state of mind to disengage.

I did have jessamyn send me the comment and while I still stand by the sentiment I would word it differently if I were to post it again. I have nothing against the Iranian people as a whole. There's a lot of human rights violations and inequity in that region that angers me. To be fair these same things anger me in my own country as well.

I do think the world, and Iran, would be a better place without Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You're welcome to disagree.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:03 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


It's really insulting to get back "NOT ENUFF FLAGS LOL" as a reason not to delete a shit post.

I could imagine that would sting if someone were to say that to you. I personally did not like that post. I saw people taking issue with the title in the thread. I would have deleted it if I ran this site as my own personal fiefdom. However all the guidelines we have are based on what people usually find problematic or things that past experience has indicated will create terrible threads. However when almost no one flags something (yours was the only flag on that post), it's not one of the same old axe-grindy topics, and the thread is going okay, especially if we're around to keep an eye on something, we'll let it stay.

I think jeffburdges needs to tone it down and that's what we've told him. If he does not do that and seems to continually write misleading or axe-grinding posts then we can take it to the next level and be a little heavier on the delete button but it's something, especially with long time users and not hit and run posters, that we'd like people to be able to manage on their own if possible.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:08 AM on March 5, 2012


> I do think the world, and Iran, would be a better place without Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You're welcome to disagree.

Ahmadinejad is a douchebag. It was more the whole "I'm willing to paint the whole country with a broad bigoted brush" thing that was problematic. Maybe if you travel around the world a bit you'll learn a different story about people "over there".
posted by Burhanistan at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


In more cases it's likely that folks generally aren't finding something objectionable as a large group, which may be more of a "different people think different things are terrible" situation where I sympathize with your frustration but am left pointing to the fact that this is a big place with a very heterogeneous userbase that may mostly not agree with your preferences in some cases.

It's not a case of left vs right, authoritarian vs libertarian or any philosophical battle. It's an objectively crap post by the standards you guys set. If we're going to let mob rule dictate when a shit post stands why even have a rules or standards at all? Why even have mods? Just have a trigger threshold that nukes a post or comment after being flagged so many times and be done with it?

I hate being the poor man's gadfly that complains about petty bullshit but I thought, as a very small part of this heterogeneous userbase, we try to be better than other places about the quality of what gets posted to our shared experience.

Having anything we've ever said about this characterized as "NOT ENUFF FLAGS LOL" is pretty insulting in its own right.

Yeah well you should go back and read the email Jeremy sent to me. He gave it such careful attention that he didn't even realize the guy who flagged it, the guy who brought it to the mod's attention and the guy who was pointing out the flaws and how shit the post was in the comments was all the same person.

However when almost no one flags something (yours was the only flag on that post), it's not one of the same old axe-grindy topics, and the thread is going okay, especially if we're around to keep an eye on something, we'll let it stay.

It's the only flag because it was an axe-grindy post about "GRAR AUTHORITY" and "GRAR AUTHORITARIAN MUSLIM GOVERNMENTS" on a site with a heavily liberal userbase.

The point is that whether the community agrees or not the mods should be coming in with "there's something here but let's try it again without the axe-grinding" and watching hopefully a better post 24 hours later.
posted by Talez at 10:28 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


He gave it such careful attention that he didn't even realize...

I know this isn't obvious to everyone but Jeremy is a woman who happens to have a man's name. We told you what we're doing to address the problem that you identified. We have a slower pace of managing some of these things than some people would prefer. There is a lot of open disagreement about how much the mod prerogative should override community sensibilities and this is one of those situations where your preference doesn't align with either the community's or the mods' feelings on the subject. I know it's frustrating but it's more important for us to accurately manage expectations than to offer empty platitudes and we're really not going to go back and delete a post from several weeks ago.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:33 AM on March 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


He gave it such careful attention that he didn't even realize the guy who flagged it, the guy who brought it to the mod's attention and the guy who was pointing out the flaws and how shit the post was in the comments was all the same person.

I went back and looked at that email and I can't tell, nor do I remember, if I made that connection at the time, but it doesn't exactly strengthen your argument that it's a terrible post if the only person objecting to it was, in fact, you.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:43 AM on March 5, 2012 [5 favorites]


If I'd known that all it would take to delete it was more flags, I would have flagged it.

It started with a specious bunch of claims from fringe conspiracy loons about an abstract concept that could have some impact on the US (and global) economy but was presented as presaging imminent collapse. That, padded out with some Wikipedia links, was pretty much the worst of the web.

I felt bad for the guy, who was obviously trying, but just hadn't found very good sources.
posted by klangklangston at 10:48 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


I know this isn't obvious to everyone but Jeremy is a woman who happens to have a man's name.

My apologies.

I know it's frustrating but it's more important for us to accurately manage expectations than to offer empty platitudes and we're really not going to go back and delete a post from several weeks ago.

Nor do I expect you to. What's done is done.

but it doesn't exactly strengthen your argument that it's a terrible post if the only person objecting to it was, in fact, you.

Wow. That was a dramatic leap of logic. Can you honestly look at that post critically and tell me it wasn't an axe-grinding post that presented hearsay and conjecture as objective fact?
posted by Talez at 10:52 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Can you honestly look at that post critically and tell me it wasn't an axe-grinding post that presented hearsay and conjecture as objective fact?

Not at all. What I said then, and what I still think, is this: "I think in this case it might be better to address the problems with the post in the comments - it looks like people are doing that already in a constructive way. It's not an awesome post but there's some meat there and most people seem to be content to dig into it as its presented. (It's not at all clear to me that this is speculation - the Guardian article seems pretty clear about the chain of events.)"

Like Jessamyn, there are a whole lot of posts that, if I were Queen of All, would just get deleted, and this was probably one of them. But since I'm not, un-awesome posts do often stand.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:08 AM on March 5, 2012


Talez, I get that you have a disagreement with the mods here, but why do you have to act like such a dick about it? This thread is pretty small stuff in my personal world but I just don't get why someone would have to speak in such a rude and aggressive way to people who are speaking so calmly and politely in return. What's the deal, man? Maybe you could, like, try to recontextualize this thread and think about how much the issue at hand matters in the larger world, i.e. very little, and just kind of dial back the rhetoric a couple of notches in the interests of maintaining the peace? I have nothing but love for you, but you're acting a fool right now.
posted by Scientist at 11:12 AM on March 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


TABAMO - take a breath and move on.
posted by spicynuts at 11:24 AM on March 5, 2012


Yes I have acted like a dick and I am sorry that I do that when I get annoyed.

If this is the direction things are going then fine. I'm just going to shut up and let it slide. I've probably burned enough patience of certain people to last a lifetime.
posted by Talez at 11:28 AM on March 5, 2012


It's really good of you to be able to recognize that you were getting a bit overheated. Happens to the best of us, but not everyone is able to step away from it so easily. For me it helps to remember that there's really very little in life that's worth getting worked up over, and that my personal world is a more pleasant place when I can face it calmly, you know? And why would I want things to be unpleasant? Much love!
posted by Scientist at 11:36 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Yeah, if the user already existed that merits a funny. But creating it just for the joke, not so much.

Hey, it was pretty funny when Brooklyn In Lovecraft was created just to bug LiB.
posted by mannequito at 12:50 PM on March 5, 2012


No, it wasn't.
posted by absalom at 1:20 PM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Hee. Sockpuppet jokes never get old!! THEY ARE A RIOT! HA HA HA!
posted by crunchland at 1:28 PM on March 5, 2012


Yeah poking fun at the depressed guy seems like not an awesome thing, generally speaking.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:55 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Unbelievable. I had a comment deleted from that thread and that comment was one word repeated twice (hope I don't get this comment deleted but the word was, ye gods, USian). That's it, literally the one word.

I guess it was heavily flagged? Are you people flagging really so thin-skinned and humourless? Was it traumatic to see that word? What if I opened an account with USian as my username? Would I get my five bucks returned and my account closed?

I've always considered the flagging system to be the online equivalent of tugging on Mummy or Daddy's sleeve and whining about someone bugging you, but this pretty much makes that plain.

Sorry mods, I sincerely appreciate this site and the work that goes into it, but as far as flagging and deleting comments, Metafilter has become a sad joke and I'm sick of it.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:57 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


People probably flagged it because it contributed nothing.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:07 PM on March 5, 2012


I'm not really satisfied with how the mods handled this case.

We've been told time and time again that mods don't edit the content of posts, except to fix broken HTML and stuff. Now the mods have sanitized a post whose central link was to a bona fide racist hate site (American Free Press), replacing that link with a link to the site of the Tehran Times, "The voice of the Islamic Revolution®" (um...yay?), and leaving all the wackadoo stuff in the rest of the post to stick around stinking up the place.

The whole post is nothing but reactionaries reacting in all-too-predictable style to a lame Iranian propaganda stunt. Why not just delete the whole thing?

It's not like it generated any worthwhile discussion; at best, it was just the same old "gold standard good!"/"gold standard bad!" foofaraw.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:09 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


They also said the author of the post asked them to replace it.
posted by maryr at 2:10 PM on March 5, 2012


Yeah, if the user already existed that merits a funny. But creating it just for the joke, not so much.

I thought almost all sock puppets were created under those circumstances.
posted by Hoopo at 2:12 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Now the mods have sanitized a post whose central link was to a bona fide racist hate site

The the OP linked to accidentally and who asked for it to be changed, yeah. This is the same level of edit we've basically always done. Usually when we do this we leave a note but mathowie did it and I guess he's not used to the way we usually do things.

I've always considered the flagging system to be the online equivalent of tugging on Mummy or Daddy's sleeve and whining about someone bugging you, but this pretty much makes that plain.

This is a lightly moderated but not unmoderated site. If you think the flagging system is the equivalent to tattling, you are welcome to that belief but the site is specifically built and moderated with the flagging feature as a tool for users.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:14 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


The the OP linked to accidentally and who asked for it to be changed, yeah. This is the same level of edit we've basically always done. Usually when we do this we leave a note but mathowie did it and I guess he's not used to the way we usually do things.

Fair enough. It's just that the replacement link is barely better than the original.

What on earth makes that post a good post for MetaFilter? Whatever it is, I really, really am not seeing it.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:20 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


stinkycheese: "Unbelievable. I had a comment deleted from that thread and that comment was one word repeated twice (hope I don't get this comment deleted but the word was, ye gods, USian). That's it, literally the one word."
For some reason I can't fathom, the word 'USian' upsets a lot of people here. I've learned not to use it - you can too.

I find it interesting that two of the mods have made it clear their (personal) position is that it should have been deleted. Plenty of people here seem to agree. People participating in the thread tried hard to make it work, but it still seemed like a forced attempt to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. If flagging is the primary method that mods use to get real-time feedback from the community, we can all take a hint and flag the crap out of things that we don't think are a good fit here. I'm guessing that will, over time, lead to a generally higher threshold for what gets to hang around. Hopefully, that would even lead to people thinking a bit more carefully about what they offer up in the first place. Everyone wins!

See, even the most cynical of people can have optimistic thoughts about the future ;-)
posted by dg at 2:37 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


People probably flagged it because it contributed nothing.

It had two favourites the last time I looked.

Also, seriously? Comments are flagged and deleted now because they contribute nothing? News to me. Who decides what contributes nothing?

I've learned not to use it. You can too.

How condescending. Why should I learn not to use it? This isn't Christmas dinner with the folks, is it? I thought it was a "lightly moderated" forum for posting links and adult discussion. We use the words we choose.

Earlier in the thread, the word was used quite innocuously. Then some (non mod) user came in and rudely said don't use that word here. Frankly, that annoyed me greatly because:

A) so far as I know there are no forbidden words here. And that's all my erased comment was - a single word repeated for emphasis.
B) this person wasn't a mod and had no business instructing anyone what to say or not say.
C) despite the fact USian makes some people lose their cool, it's *not even a perjorative*.
D) there's lots of precedent for the word being absolutely fine here. One example, this question on the green in which it appears in the question and caused zero problems.
posted by stinkycheese at 2:51 PM on March 5, 2012


I'd like to see less reliance on flags and more reliance on objective standards.. This place is what it is though.


Unbelievable. I had a comment deleted from that thread and that comment was one word repeated twice (hope I don't get this comment deleted but the word was, ye gods, USian). That's it, literally the one word.

And you thought that was a good comment to leave? Maybe you thought "everybody will favourite the hell out of this"? A comment like that is the very definition of thread crapping. Regardless of the quality of a post, thread crapping should be deleted. Hopefully it didn't require a bunch of flags. Hopefully the mods are deleting that garbage by reflex now.
posted by Chuckles at 2:51 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, seriously? Comments are flagged and deleted now because they contribute nothing? News to me. Who decides what contributes nothing?

stinkycheese, what are you talking about? You have apparently been a member for more than 7 years. There has been a flag called noise on this site for like forever.

Think of the cocktail party analogy: we're all over at Matt's for drinks, and he and the others hosts (mods) are tasked with guiding as lightly as possible the hundreds of conversations that we have so that they go well. If you're at a cocktail party just babbling "Poop. Poop. Poop," over and over, you're not necessarily hurting anyone but your not helping anyone have a better time either, so the mods are going to ask you to shut up. Or delete your comment.
posted by Aizkolari at 2:59 PM on March 5, 2012


What are you talking about?

Read my last comment again, maybe? Your analogy would be more correct if someone at the party mentioned Palestine (I choose this example simply because I know the word does upset some people) in polite discussion and was then informed "we don't use that word in this house". And then I lean in and say "Palestine". Twice.

Some people at the party would presumably find that rude, sure, but I find being told (or hearing someone else be told) not to use certain words rude.

Am I helping others have a better time? Is that even relevant? I'd like to think, in those measely ten characters that so offended delicate sensibilities, I helped stand against the chilling of free speech here. But then my comment was erased (I'd better not say censored or disappeared) so, as Chuckles put it, it is what it is.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:10 PM on March 5, 2012


stinkycheese: "I've learned not to use it. You can too.

How condescending. Why should I learn not to use it? This isn't Christmas dinner with the folks, is it? I thought it was a "lightly moderated" forum for posting links and adult discussion. We use the words we choose.

C) despite the fact USian makes some people lose their cool, it's *not even a perjorative*.
"

Wasn't meaning to be condescending - I fail to understand why people get upset about the use of the word, too. But they do. Part of 'adult discussion' is treating people with respect and that sometimes means not using words that offend many of those people, even if you don't understand why. It's not like there aren't plenty of other words you can use that say the same thing. You don't help your case much by trying to equate the oppression of free speech with advice that a certain word offends people.
posted by dg at 3:15 PM on March 5, 2012


If a word offends no one, free speech isn't an issue, is it?
posted by stinkycheese at 3:19 PM on March 5, 2012


Some people at the party would presumably find that rude, sure, but I find being told (or hearing someone else be told) not to use certain words rude.

Others find repeating the word "Usian" rude.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:22 PM on March 5, 2012


You know, I have to say, I feel sorry for the moderators here. When they're not getting yelled at about deleting too much, they're getting yelled at about not deleting enough. It's definitely a no-win situation. Just because you flag something and it doesn't get deleted, it doesn't mean they don't love you.
posted by crunchland at 3:32 PM on March 5, 2012 [5 favorites]


I like Usonian. It sounds so much nicer, and has a pedigree.
posted by empath at 3:36 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


I don't get the "USian" hate either (and I was born in and have lived all my life except for vacations in the US), but the thing is that there's nothing wrong with the name "Bobby" but if someone says "Please call me 'Bob' instead" you're an ass for continuing to call them "Bobby".

stinkycheese, if I am misremembering that you were involved in the last flap about how some citizens of the US who read and post here don't like to be called "USian", my apologies. In any case, now you know, it's Bob, not Bobby.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:45 PM on March 5, 2012


How would one even pronounce "Usian". Rhymes with fusion?
posted by Burhanistan at 3:50 PM on March 5, 2012


Uh, just because a few people come on here and say "I'd prefer you use American rather than USian" I'm supposed to take that as representative of the country as a whole?

Look, I don't want to rehash this argument any more than anyone else here. I'm sick of it too. If you care to look through my comments, you'll notice I have tried over the last couple of years to say "people from the US" here. I'm not just trolling yuk yuk using it whenever I can to annoy people.

This situation however, like I said, was someone using the term in a completely innocuous way and someone else still found that bothersome enough to choose to speak for everyone on the site and say we don't use that word here. And that bothered me enough that I used it.

Honestly, there's less upset when certain well-known offensive phrases are used on this site.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:57 PM on March 5, 2012


By phrases I mean words.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:57 PM on March 5, 2012


You're behaving like a shitty older brother, poking a younger sibling just because you know he'll freak out. It doesn't make you look any better than the people who get mad at USian.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 4:01 PM on March 5, 2012


This situation however, like I said, was someone using the term in a completely innocuous way and someone else still found that bothersome enough to choose to speak for everyone on the site and say we don't use that word here. And that bothered me enough that I used it.

In a sort of obnoxiously contentless way, yes. I don't see what there is really to argue about here: you are welcome to you opinions, but try not to be obnoxious about it. There are better ways to express the idea you were apparently after, and a better specific place on this site to do it if you want to have a conversation about, than what you actually did with that comment.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:02 PM on March 5, 2012


I'm long since reconciled to the fact that my view on the term "Americans" makes me "shitty" to some people here. That's cool, no problem there. I just think it's rediculous on its face for mods to scrub a word because it annoys some flaggers or whatever.
posted by stinkycheese at 4:06 PM on March 5, 2012


Maybe next time you want to use the word add some content around it.
posted by the_artificer at 4:08 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


How would one even pronounce "Usian". Rhymes with fusion?

I assumed it would be "American". It's like shorthand or something.
posted by Hoopo at 4:11 PM on March 5, 2012


So if I'd said "I'd like to hear some more USian commentary on this issue" or some such BS comment like that, it might have had content and been fine.

You're really grasping at straws here.
posted by stinkycheese at 4:11 PM on March 5, 2012


Look, this is just going to get progressively more ugly. I've said what I wanted to say. I'm out of here.
posted by stinkycheese at 4:12 PM on March 5, 2012


Spoken like some attempting to defend an indefensible position.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 4:36 PM on March 5, 2012


spicynuts: "Hey...leave that thread alone...it's the only time I've ever been able to make a Johnny Dangerously reference in a MeFi thread."

I agree. I got a good joke in there as well.
posted by Bonzai at 4:56 PM on March 5, 2012


It's like shorthand or something.

− 3 keystrokes to type it
+ 10,000 keystrokes to futilely argue that it's not the stupidest neologism that was ever neologizzed*
+ 1.7 internet spite points
= worth it?

* Okay. Fine. Second-stupidest. Whatever.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:14 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


stinkycheese - seriously, you're just wrong. Here are the reasons deleting your comment was the right decision.

1. It was not relevant to the actual point of the post (however poor or not-poor that post may have been).

The post was geared towards talking about the petrodollar and possibly Iran's attempts to subvert its value. It was not about the best possible term to refer to citizens of the U.S.

2. Even if the post had been about "USian," your comment would still have been deletable, because it offered nothing to the discussion. Your post was a sibling in the back seat sneaking their hand over the arbitrary "this is MY side and that is YOUR side" line.

Basically, someone in the thread said "hey guys, let's FIGHT ABOUT USIAN" and you were like "HELL YEAH, I LOVE FIGHTING". Why... why would you expect that to fly?

3. Finally, I literally laughed out loud (boisterously, at work, startling passers-by) when I read your "but it got favorites!" defense. Come on.

For the record? This comment seems totally fine to me! It also exhibits all the characteristics your original, deleted comment lacks. It's relevant to the discussion and it lays out a position in a calm and coherent manner.

If you're REALLY SUPER BOTHERED by someone attempting to impose arbitrary non-rules on the site (and I sure am!), send them a memail. It's probably more productive to avoid discussing the merits of a particular term or whatever, and instead just say "hey I don't really think it's a great idea to get all prescriptive about stuff in comment threads."

Ok?

Ok.
posted by kavasa at 5:43 PM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Well, I'm glad I made this thread because we got five bucks out of it. Better track record than most callouts.

The scrubbing of the original central link explains the weird whiff of crankpot I was getting off the framing of the post, which makes a lot less sense as it currently stands. I didn't realize how hard at work the mods were on this, already. I'm still of the opinion the site and poster would both have been better off with the thread being promptly nuked and the poster given a polite explanation as to why.

The subject of the petrodollar is quite interesting, and this was just a terrible treatment of it, which pretty much doomed the thread from the very beginning. It wasn't derailed because there was no rail to begin with. It's unfortunate because there is a lot of interesting writing on the subject, none of which made it into the post.

It seems you're not trying very hard as it was sort of spelled out for you:
"It's a subject for debate whether the highly volatile petrodollar was ever intended to serve as a de facto substitute for the defunct gold standard."


This is exactly what I'm getting at, three blind mice: the post was a virtually content-free invitation to argue. That shit should not fly.
posted by mek at 6:46 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Actually, since we're already talking about it, can someone explain what the deal is with USian? It's a word I've only ever seen on this site, but every time I see it here it's in the context of a discussion about how it upsets people, so I've never gotten a sense of how it's generally used, or why it upsets people.

I'm assuming, from the word itself, that people who use it do so in place of the term 'American' to talk about someone from the US, and I'm guessing that they use it because there's more to America or the Americas than just the US. Is that right?

If that's the case, what is it about the word that people find so inflammatory?

Just to clarify (since tone is hard to convey in text form) I'm not being sarcastic about this at all - I've been curious about this for a little while, and this seems like as good a time as any to ask.
posted by Ragged Richard at 6:54 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


I've never gotten a sense of how it's generally used, or why it upsets people.

My understanding from purely within a MetaFilter context, is that some people object to the term American referring to people from the US because there are many other people who live in the Americas who are from many different nationalities and they find it to be a peculiar possibly arrogant claiming of the term "American" to refer to people from the US and the US only.

So, the substitution is to use the word USian. And I think people object to it because they find the word itself sort of loaded and not actually used except by people who are pissed off at the user of the word American [i.e. it doesn't seem to have a neutral meaning, just a "you fuckers who are so arrogant as to call yourselves Americans when there are tons of other people from the Americas"] and I never see it anywhere except the internet.

However, I am so far inside this as to have no good perspective. I have never met people in real life who were confused or annoyed by the term American as referring to people from the US, whether that's confirmation bias or what I don't know. It seems to be standard usage. I'm not sure if it's standard usage that should change or not. I don't personally object to the term USian, but I object to it being used as a taunt which seems to be almost the only way it comes up here. You can check the Urban Dictionary for an idea of the range of interpretations. Seems to be a long standing internet dogwhistle and I think it's clear that however it was bring used before stinkycheese showed up, that is definitely how he was using it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:04 PM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]




Thanks jessamyn and Brandon Blatcher - that clears that up for me.
posted by Ragged Richard at 7:10 PM on March 5, 2012


Also, auto correct wants to change usian to Indian. So confused right now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:13 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm curious about this, too. I used to use the term regularly because I felt it was a better way to describe those that are in the USA. In the same way that it would be inaccurate to define someone as 'African' because they come from that continent. But, instead of going over the whole thing again, you could read here, here, here, here or here. I'm still not clear on why people dislike it, but I've got over it and simply don't use it any more because of the angst it causes.
posted by dg at 7:21 PM on March 5, 2012


If only there was a way to see that others had already written what I was labouring over before I clicked post.
posted by dg at 7:23 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


I used to use the term regularly because I felt it was a better way to describe those that are in the USA.

Thanks, we have a name already.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:25 PM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

If that's the case, what is it about the word that people find so inflammatory?
I think it actually taps into some of the deeper wells of lexical angst than the ones Jessamyn is talking about. Specifically, there's a lot of the same stuff that happens when someone says something like the lines of "I think that using the word [epithet] is injurious to [a group of people], so could people please not use it?"

It almost doesn't matter what word [epithet] actually is, there will be an impassioned defense of it. This was mysterious to me for a long time, because in my eyes it was like "oh I don't want to hurt people!"

But I think other people react badly to those requests for a few different reasons.

Like there's probably a decent dose of "you're not the boss of me!" going on.

There's also probably some backlash from people that feel unfairly judged. You know, "just because I say American doesn't mean I'm a bad person!"

And then just plain ol' conservatism, resistance to change because we've always done it this way and it works so leave us alone.

That's my speculation, anyway.
posted by kavasa at 7:32 PM on March 5, 2012


Then some (non mod) user came in and rudely said don't use that word here. Frankly, that annoyed me greatly because:

A) so far as I know there are no forbidden words here. And that's all my erased comment was - a single word repeated for emphasis.
B) this person wasn't a mod and had no business instructing anyone what to say or not say.


There is an appropriate outlet to discuss the existance/non-existance of a forbidden word list for this site, or to discuss whether or not one community member's expression of dislike of something said counts as unauthorized moderation. That outlet is MetaTalk.
posted by radwolf76 at 7:58 PM on March 5, 2012


In the same way that it would be inaccurate to define someone as 'African' because they come from that continent.

There's part of the problem there; I think. In the United States, there's no such continent as "America". We have two continents we call "North America" and "South America". If we want to refer to them as a unit, we'd say "the Americas", "the New World", or, less accurately, "the Western Hemisphere". I know that some dialects of Spanish spoken in the Americas refer to people from the US/Americans as "Norteamericano", which to my ears, sounds wrong. Greenlanders, Canadians and Mexicans are all "North American" too; but I'm not going to force the rules of my dialect of English upon a dialect of Spanish.

"USian" is a little different than "Norteamericano", though, because it's a made up word. So it's not like it's someone's natural dialect, nor does it provide clarity. (It can't even be pronounced.) So it really serves just to tweak people who say "American". The clearly implied "you shouldn't be using 'American'" is what gets people's hackles up. (Especially since it's actually less accurate, since Mexico's full name translates to United Mexican States/United States of Mexico. No other country has "America" in its name other than, well, America.)
posted by spaltavian at 8:04 PM on March 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


Brandon Blatcher: "Thanks, we have a name already."

Yeah, I've already got that message, but thanks!
posted by dg at 8:34 PM on March 5, 2012


Sorry, this was clearly GYOB material. How embarrassing.

I was just a little too excited to post something, didn't go into it with malicious intentions, but I can see that it was heavily tilted in the "discuss." direction and not about the links. I think a few people are a little too gung-ho with the pitchforks but clearly I hit a nerve. I have no xenophobic motivations.

Sometimes it's hard to break out of the axe-grindy state and realize you're being axe-grindy until the pitchforks come out.

I'll donate $50 to MeFi if you nuke everything I've ever contributed here :|
posted by aydeejones at 9:02 PM on March 5, 2012


there are many other people who live in the Americas who are from many different nationalities and they find it to be a peculiar possibly arrogant claiming of the term "American" to refer to people from the US and the US only

I read something like this every time the issue comes up, but is it actually true? I know the opposite is true when we Canadians go abroad and people call us American and we seethe with a barely-restrained rage that is somewhere between Irish-called-British and Guatemalan-called Mexican. Very few Canadians would refer to themselves as American unless they held dual citizenship or were trying to pull a fast one. North American: absolutely. American: fuck no.

Plus, Americans have been called "The Americans" in every war they've fought, and they've fought a lot of wars. With that in mind, referring to all North Americans and South Americans as American would be weird and confusing and at least two kinds of offensive.

I can see it being an issue with regard to American Nationalism/Nativism/Racism and whathaveyou, where genuinely American Americans of an Elsewhere-American background might be rankled by any superfluous hyphenated qualifiers preceding their true nationality. Totally acceptable outrage. Actually American.

But come on, French Guineans? So not American. It'd be like saying all Jamaicans are Indian (not just the Indo-Jamaicans) because they come from the West Indies. It'd be ridiculous. West Indian: sure. Indian: huh?

Seems like maybe it's just confused Non-Any-Kind-Of-Americans trying to be politically correct, knowing there's something about the word American that makes people go all HULK SMASH, and getting it all bass-ackwards. And then Americans hear that and go, "Oh. Huh. Weird." EVEN THOUGH IT'S TOTALLY BANANAS. I've never seen any actual non-American N./S.American object to Americans being called Americans. It may indeed be a real thing, but I've never seen it with my own eyes in all the times this has come up (which is far too often -- seriously, maybe people should just stop using USian so we can stop talking about people using USian).

In conclusion: USian? You mean American. Say American. I'm pretty sure.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:02 PM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


I meant French Guianaians. Swear to God.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:05 PM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


BTW, I didn't pick up on any anti-Iran sentiment that was referred to in this post. I think directly challenging the dollar's stature as a reserve currency (I think it is reasonable to say that there is an asymmetric power dynamic here between the dollar and the rest of the world) is a perfectly cromulent response and a far more challenging and effective tack to take vs. saber-rattling about nuclear weapons.

I guess for those who believe that there is no "there there" have nothing to worry about. Oil prices directly reflect and propagate inflation throughout the economy and there's a reason countries hoard dollars to keep their own currency stable, until there isn't any more. Currency exchange does come with a cost. I think it's a big deal.

I'll have to examine the post and my opinions more closely to figure out how the anti-Iran perception came to be. I think we should leave Iran the fuck alone but our empire is too big to fail and wars keep the gears moving and it's just an all around shitty situation.
posted by aydeejones at 9:21 PM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


There I go with the "our" again - YOU ESS IAN! Heh. I'll go away now
posted by aydeejones at 9:24 PM on March 5, 2012


The USA is the only country with the word "America" in its name. There is, however, another country with "United States" in its name.

Adding that to the cardinal principle that one should call people by the term they identify as, and the fact that not a single person who lives in the Americas gets confused when you call someone American, "USian" is worse than offensive; it is stupid.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 9:48 PM on March 5, 2012 [6 favorites]


aydeejones, thanks for swinging by. I just want to note that this wasn't meant as a callout or attack on you in particular - everyone's first post is scary enough as is. It was a question and discussion about moderation. The phrasing of "nuclear option" was just ambiguous and weird, and an invitation to read anything and everything into it, including sentiment like McCain's famous "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran" routine.
posted by mek at 10:20 PM on March 5, 2012


I think the real enemy is the word "US-American", but that's probably half because it takes the clumsiness of USian without the succinctness of said word, and half because it leads to the insistence that "American" is the right general term for "a citizen of the Americas".

The latter leaves me rocking back and forth, muttering things like, "Our self-image is based on a bedrock of not being American. If you take that away, then all we have is the curling and Quebec."
posted by frimble at 11:56 PM on March 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Also, auto correct wants to change usian to Indian. So confused right now.

There were here first. Hope that clears up the confusion.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:11 AM on March 6, 2012 [1 favorite]


I just want to note that this wasn't meant as a callout or attack on you in particular --- Wow. You certainly didn't word it like it was a generalized callout. From the look of the OP of this thread, it's clear that you hated the post, the poster, and the moderator for not honoring your flag.
posted by crunchland at 4:45 AM on March 6, 2012


Hate might be overstating things a tad.
posted by h00py at 5:01 AM on March 6, 2012


I think the real enemy is the word "US-American", but that's probably half because it takes the clumsiness of USian without the succinctness of said word

We might as well just shift to "God's Chosen." Two bad elections, and it will be voted intyo law anyway....
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:40 AM on March 6, 2012


There were here first.

Does that make them Native Usians?

Am I an African-Usian? Usian African-American? Please, someone who isn't American let me know!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:41 AM on March 6, 2012 [2 favorites]


Am I an African-Usian? Usian African-American? Please, someone who isn't American let me know!

I am an American, but I imagine that AfroUSian will be the correct term. Probably with a prefix depending on how many generations you have been here. So I would be a TriNordoUSian, which will be wisely decried as sexist, because it ignores my mom's heritage (QuintGermanoMaybeHelveticoUSian). This leaves me with TriNordoQuintGermanoMaybeHelveticoUSian, which I abbreviate as "American."
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:54 AM on March 6, 2012


I did have jessamyn send me the comment and while I still stand by the sentiment

Do you still stand by your ridiculous claim that there was "video of the populace in Iran dancing in the street and burning the American flag" after 9/11? I seem to somehow not remember anything at all like that happening. Here's what I remember:

9/11 Raised Unrealized Hopes in US-Iran Relations

Candlelight vigils were held throughout Iran and professions of sorrow and sympathy for the United States citizens who lost family and friends were ubiquitous. This was even more impressive when one notes that these were not government organized events, but were the spontaneous outpouring of Iranian citizens. On an official level, many Iranian religious leaders condemned the attacks, despite their differences with the United States administration...

The 9/11 tragedy also resulted in a brief thaw in U.S.-Iran relations as Iran offered its air space and landing fields to the United States in its attacks on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It created increased positive feeling on the part of ordinary Iranian citizens for the United States and its people. It is a secondary tragedy that this brief halcyon period in U.S.-Iran relations did not last.

President George W. Bush inexplicably made Iran one of the targets of vituperative rhetoric in his now infamous State of the Union address in January, 2002:
“States like [Iran, Iraq and North Korea], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.”

In effect, President Bush was associating Iran with the September 11 attacks, either explicitly or implicitly.

The effect of these words in Iran was electric and immediate. Iranians who were sympathetic to the United States were chagrinned and puzzled by the “axis of evil” epithet, and stung by what they saw as unjustified accusations. They were especially confused by what they saw as a repudiation of the positive developments in the immediate post-9/11 period. From this point on, the already poor relations between Iran and the United States deteriorated sharply.

posted by mediareport at 7:33 AM on March 6, 2012 [3 favorites]


Yeah, although the original Time article is now gone, here's Wayback Machine's archive (takes a second to load) of vigil photos from Tehran's Mohseni Square on September 18, 2001.
posted by gman at 7:44 AM on March 6, 2012 [1 favorite]


I can't remember when I read a more vicious revisionist lie in a comment on the blue. Seriously, it's appalling.
posted by mediareport at 7:48 AM on March 6, 2012


I'll out myself. It was my comment. It was shitty and I was pissed. I apologize for it and for any offense given. I have an irrational hate on for that area of the world right now, and most of it is aimed at the current regime. I got mad at someone accusing me of being a jingoist, since my motivations for hating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has nothing to do with my patriotism (or lack there of). It wasn't one of my better comments and I'd retract it and rewrite it if I could. At the point it was removed I decided it was best for my blood pressure and state of mind to disengage.

Your life sounds like a Phillip K Dick novel, railing against abstract, imaginary antagonists. Could you define what you mean by "regime", by the way???
posted by KokuRyu at 9:13 AM on March 6, 2012


If anything, I've now learned that "USian" is a pejorative and so apparently I've been engaging in a guerrilla reclaiming for the past several years. For the record, I pronounce it "you ess ee ann."
posted by rhizome at 11:19 AM on March 6, 2012


Uh, just because a few people come on here and say "I'd prefer you use American rather than USian" I'm supposed to take that as representative of the country as a whole?

You're "supposed" not to do things that make specific people angry after they've made it clear to you that those particular things make them angry. Like calling people "Bobby" when they've said many times that they prefer "Bob" and don't like "Bobby".

There are many people on Metafilter who are citizens of the US who don't like to be called "USian". But you somehow feel it's cool to keep doing it here. Why? The amount of time you spend defending how awesome "USian" is could easily have been spent typing "US citizens" or "What's the US perspective" or similar, instead of being The Guy Who Writes 'USian' Even After Several People Have Made It Clear How Much It Bugs Them.

Keep dying on this hill over and over if you like. Look, there goes your rock again!
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:25 AM on March 6, 2012 [3 favorites]


Sidhe - um?

"USian" has been adopted by some folks in an attempt to not marginalize people.

Most of the "please don't use this term" efforts are based on a term that has been used to denigrate groups of people on the wrong side of the power imbalance. The analogy doesn't really work.

Irritation with "USian" seems more in line with people irritated at any other neologism invented to avoid giving offense.
posted by kavasa at 5:37 PM on March 6, 2012


Wow. You certainly didn't word it like it was a generalized callout. From the look of the OP of this thread, it's clear that you hated the post, the poster, and the moderator for not honoring your flag.

I know, I know, I HATE EVERYONE. I was going to sacrifice a newborn calf in an attempt to curse mathowie's firstborn, but I couldn't find the ritual dagger I had anointed in the brackish taint of Lake Ontario, so I had to settle for picking on a mediocre post in MeTa. C'est la vie.

But now you're on my LIST, crunchland.
posted by mek at 6:01 PM on March 6, 2012


Could you make it a pig? That way we'd have the sacred bacon.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:13 PM on March 6, 2012 [1 favorite]


Eep!
posted by crunchland at 6:49 PM on March 6, 2012


Your life sounds like a Phillip K Dick novel, railing against abstract, imaginary antagonists.

Fair enough and more accurate than it has a right to be.

As to the rest...I could either choose to entrench and prove I am an asshole, or I can stand by my statement above. I see nothing to be gained by spending my time clarifying something I've already retracted and apologized for. The whole subject pisses me off, so I can work myself into an unreasoning frenzy (once again) or I can reiterate it was a shitty comment and I regret having made it.

If Iran is in your top ten vacation spots, more power to you. I'd be perfectly willing to spend all day hanging out with your average Iranian. I'm not interested in doing so in Iran. If you don't understand why this is the case your google is broken.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:26 PM on March 6, 2012


The thing is that "US citizen" or "US resident" avoids both a) using the word "American" to mean the nationals of only one of the many nations of the Americas, and b) bugging the people who find "USian" bugworthy.

Is it really worth avoiding typing five extra characters and a space in order to be polite to fellow posters? As I've said already in this thread, I am a lifelong US citizen and don't understand why "USian" bugs many people here, but it does bug many people here and so I don't use it.

I appreciate the reasoning behind people's wish not to use "American" in an exclusive-to-the-USA-only way, but it's not like "USian" is the only other option.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:00 PM on March 7, 2012


I thought one of the main reasons 'USian' bugs so many people was because the 'US' part is not specific enough to the USA? Saying 'US citizen' doesn't really solve that and you would have to use 'USA citizen' to do so. Which is at least as clumsy as 'USian'.
posted by dg at 3:11 PM on March 7, 2012


That post was terrible. total garbage economics, even with the anti-iran stuff.
posted by delmoi at 9:46 AM on March 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


« Older Trying to remember an old post...  |  Podcast pony: A smidge of norm... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments