Spelling America "Amerika" makes you look like a jakkass.

[Jragon]

@elmwood

No mention of those that use "United tate"?

I think I’m going to start spelling it “Ameriqa”, or if I’m particularly outraged, “AmeriQQQa”.

AmIRAQa? You know, just to drive the stake through?

[Lemur866]

@Lord_Ashtar

It’s because English lacks a gender neutral pronoun, not for exclusivity’s sake.

You ever hear of a pronoun? Called “they”? If someone wants to use a gender-neutral pronoun, this is what they should use.

[Lemur866]

@elmwood

No mention of those that use "United tate"?

United States? More like JEWnited States! Amiright?

[Nametag]

@Mooch

Hupersonity, please.

Oh, way to validate the oppressor, you collaborationist bootlicker – pretend to eliminate the sexist “man” in humanity, and throw in an equally sexist “son” to replace it. Nice. Thanks for telling my daughter that she’s not her brother’s equal.

That’s “huperoffspringity” to you, pal.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Carol_Stream

So misspelling American is “simply a way of riling up other posters to no purpose beyond trolling,” but misspelling God or Jesus or Catholic, in an attempt to rile up other posters, is not trolling?

That would probably be trolling too, wouldn’t it? But does that really happen very often?

[Malacandra]

@Captain_Amazing

That would probably be trolling too, wouldn’t it? But does that really happen very often?

Kalhoun, for one, has admitted quite openly that she lower-cases “god”, “jesus”, “christian” and so on with intent to piss off Christians.

[Captain_Amazing]

Well, that’s not a misspelling…that’s a capitalization issue. Although I don’t think anyone on here should do anything with the sole intent of pissing other people off.

[BigT]

@Captain_Amazing

Well, that’s not a misspelling…that’s a capitalization issue. Although I don’t think anyone on here should do anything with the sole intent of pissing other people off.

Every spelling bee I’ve been in seems to consider it otherwise. As do most spellcheckers. (Jesus doesn’t get a red squiggly, but jesus does.)

[Nametag]

Oh, and going back to the discussion of the militant feminist who used the “Amerika” spelling, it occurs to me that really militant feminists should spell it “AmeriXXa.” Unless they have Turner’s syndrome, in which case it would be “AmeriXa.”

Need I add that a militant porn-positive feminist might spell it “AmeriXXXa”?

[Malacandra]

@Captain_Amazing

Well, that’s not a misspelling…that’s a capitalization issue. Although I don’t think anyone on here should do anything with the sole intent of pissing other people off.

You can in the Pit, no harm no foul. Doing it in, say, GD is meant to be a big no-no though. Doing it in GD and admitting to it in the Pit, in my opinion, obtains muchly in the modality of douche.

[Svejk_1]

@msmith537

Unless you are referring to the town in the Netherlands

I was going to write that the town in the Netherlands is spelled with a c (I was thinking of America, Limburg), only to find out that there’s also Amerika, Drenthe! :smack::smack::smack:

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Lemur866

You ever hear of a pronoun? Called “they”? If someone wants to use a gender-neutral pronoun, this is what they should use.

Theyity? You’re kidding, right?

[VinylTurnip]

@Carol_Stream

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11309022&postcount=5

So misspelling American is “simply a way of riling up other posters to no purpose beyond trolling,” but misspelling God or Jesus or Catholic, in an attempt to rile up other posters, is not trolling?

So much for consistency.

Think that’s bad? I saw the previous Pope ridiculed repeatedly by being called “Karol.” And none of these so-called liberals did *thing one *to stop it.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Lemur866

United States? More like JEWnited States! Amiright?

@Lord_Ashtar

Theyity? You’re kidding, right?

On second thought, the discussion was about “mankind”, so it would actually be theykind. Which is still pretty stupid.

[Roland_Orzabal]

I’m having the same problem with this “Amerika” spelling that I had with the debate around calling Democrats “the Democrat party”, in that I can’t decide whether it’s more idiotic to do it, or to give a rat’s ass about it being done.

As I did during that debacle, then, I propose we go the safe route and knock off both of these pursuits. Anyone with me?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Lord_Ashtar

On second thought, the discussion was about “mankind”, so it would actually be theykind. Which is still pretty stupid.

No–at that point it was about you saying that English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun. Which admittedly was a non-sequitur on your part, but it was also wrong. “They” has been used as a gender-neutral pronoun for centuries:

@Dictionary.com

Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I’ll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference.

@American Heritage Dictionary

sage Note: The use of the third-person plural pronoun they to refer to a singular noun or pronoun is attested as early as 1300, and many admired writers have used they, them, themselves, and their to refer to singular nouns such as one, a person, an individual, and each. W.M. Thackeray, for example, wrote in Vanity Fair in 1848, “A person can’t help their birth,” and more recent writers such as George Bernard Shaw and Anne Morrow Lindbergh have also used this construction, in sentences such as “To do a person in means to kill them,” and “When you love someone you do not love them all the time.” The practice is widespread and can be found in such mainstream publications as the Christian Science Monitor, Discover, and the Washington Post. The usage is so common in speech that it generally passes unnoticed. · However, despite the convenience of third-person plural forms as substitutes for generic he and for structurally awkward coordinate forms like his/her, many people avoid using they to refer to a singular antecedent out of respect for the traditional grammatical rule concerning pronoun agreement. Most of the Usage Panelists reject the use of they with singular antecedents. Eighty-two percent find the sentence The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their course work unacceptable. Thus, the writer who chooses to use they in similar contexts in writing should do so only if assured that the usage will be read as a conscious choice rather than an error. · Interestingly, Panel members do seem to distinguish between singular nouns, such as the typical student, and pronouns that are grammatically singular but semantically plural, such as anyone and everyone. Sixty-four percent of panel members accept the sentence No one is willing to work for those wages anymore, are they? in informal speech.

To suggest that Lemur was referring back to “humanity” instead of to your non sequitur about gender-neutral pronouns shows poor reading comprehension in addition to a paucity of information about traditional English pronoun usage.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@msmith537

Unless you are referring to the town in the Netherlands, the song by Rammstein, the book by Franz Kafka or the 1987 miniseries staring Kris Kristofferson . . .

The latter of which, if I remember, involved a Soviet Communist takeover of America. During the Cold War, Amerika was the province of the right, as in “Socialized medicine is another step on the road to Amerika.”

Then at some point, it got taken up by the left, either in homage to Nazi orthography, or to one third of the KKK–I’m not sure which. It sounds equally moronic from either side.

[Shodan]

@Roland_Orzabal

I’m having the same problem with this “Amerika” spelling that I had with the debate around calling Democrats “the Democrat party”, in that I can’t decide whether it’s more idiotic to do it, or to give a rat’s ass about it being done.

Isn’t it “Democ-rat”? Just like it has to be AmeriKKKa.

Never heard Kanada before.

Regards,
Shodan

[Cat_Fight]

@SciFiSam

Humankind.

I wish I had the time and energy to take on the poster above who said that feminism had pretty much achieved all its goals.

Lord, me too. How convenient that it happened in our lifetime! Kind of reminds me of people who think technology’s gone “too far,” but only want to scale it back to, hmm, when did they get their last laptop again?

Man and mankind are like guy. It works for everyone… until it doesn’t. ‘That guy over there just gave birth by c-section.’ ‘Mankind’s ability to breastfeed its young has helped the species survive.’

ETA: Pretty much agree with Left Hand of Dorkness, though I’m not against people doing linguistic gymnastics in certain contexts (poems, essays) to make a point.

[Clothahump]

@Nzinga_Seated

No. I’m not saying that we have to say ‘womankind’.

Let me try again. I am saying that I used to think it was useless to write ‘Amerika’. Now, I can see what they are trying to do.

It is useless. All they are trying to do is be offensive. They’re not raising consciousness or anything like that; they’re simply acting like 5 year old brats and trying to draw attention to themselves.