You know, that in the civilized world we use meters and kilograms? ;)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=77+kg+in+pounds
:-)
Just makes for better headlines, although almost everyone uses C now.
(In Orwell's 1984, he makes a point of having a bystander in a pub complaining about beer being served in liters. Just another symbol of dystopia. Some people still think like that.)
The biggest argument for metric for length and mass is the uniform way of making larger and smaller units. If you need to cover 1875 square centimeters with something that is priced by the square meter, the conversion is going to be a multiplication or division by a power of 10. Figuring out how many square yards you need to buy to cover 1875 square inches is much more annoying.
There is no such argument for temperature. For both C and F, we use a decimal system to get units smaller or larger than a degree. The only advantage C has is that a difference of 1 degree C = 1 Kelvin, so converting between C and K just requires addition or subtraction of an ugly number (273.15). Converting between F and either C or K requires both a multiplication or division (by 1.8) and an addition or subtraction.
F, on the other hand, has the advantage of a smaller degree (1 degree C = 1.8 degree F), giving us a finer scale when we are sticking to integers.
The F scale and choice of reference points aligns it very nicely with the weather. 0 F to 100 F is pretty much the range that a world traveller will encounter as they visit various major cities. In C, that's -18 C to 38 C.
The most sensible system would be to use metric for length and mass, F for temperature when you don't need your 0 point set to absolute 0, and a Kelvin like scale where 1 K = 1 degree F instead of 1 degree C when you do need the 0 point to be absolute 0.