You can't comment like this on HN.

I’m willing to defer to mods on this one, but Aussie slang is full of warm put downs for ‘mericans, but I would hesitate to call the comment in question derogatory in nature.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Seppo

tl;dr: it’s rhyming slang, Yank (USA person who may/may not also be one of the two Australian stereotypes of Americans, the other one being Texans) rhymes with (septic) tank, shortened to the euphemism used by OP

Thanks, I'm Australian, and I know what it means, and I know how it's used :)

Thanks, I’m an American who is related to Australians and has lived in Australia. Since we both have standing to speak and both know how it’s used, I think it’s fair to say that I said this for the rest of the class, as I am a regular here and had an inkling you’re Australian.

Words like that have a complicated past. They may be have been used with a veneer of friendliness but in truth they’re diminutive or derisive. The person I replied to here has used it repeatedly in a derisive way on HN. We wouldn’t tolerate equivalent words being used for Asian people or others of different origins. I haven’t heard the word used in ordinary conversation for decades, hence it’s jarring to see it here.

> The person I replied to here has used it repeatedly in a derisive way on HN.

I think this is kind of an interesting point, because you mention Asian people, but "American" isn't a race. To certain readings, racism is prejudice plus power. In this setup, America is a hegemon establishment power. To dismiss someone or their views just because they're from the US doesn't sound nice, and I don't see how using the term would improve the tenor or tempo of the discussion, but as you surely know, cheekiness is a common trait of Australians. That's why I brought it up, as it's well and good and arguably just to be direct and to the point about not using that kind of talk on HN, because that's what your mod hat is for. I acknowledge and respect that you're doing what you're supposed to do. I simply wanted to gently acknowledge that whatever point that they were making, however poorly it might be phrased, was part and parcel to the derision that you're speaking of. I don't know if it's a very interesting or compelling point when stripped of its emotional language, but our words perhaps say more about ourselves than that which we speak of. I think it's good to be clear about what it is that is bad, not simply that it is bad.

You know better than I what is bad posting for HN, as what might be within the norms of acceptable speech down under would make many English-speaking people blush. I think the post was more heat than light myself, but if they'd said it any other way, we wouldn't be having this interaction, which is arguably what HN is for, interacting with each other in a way that encourages curiosity about the topic and about each other.

Then again, most people aren't super curious about HN metacommentary, so I better wrap this up. Appreciate the context.

Here you go:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

HN isn’t a platform for expressing hatred, and that’s an unqualified good thing. I’m reminded of some writer, who wrote about how happy families are all alike, and how unhappy families are unhappy in their own unique way. There are so few things it takes to make it go right, and there are so many ways that good things can go wrong.

If tone policing limits the Overton Window of acceptable speech because it is not sufficiently positive, that becomes a kind of expectation for self-censorship, which is contrary to the HN guidelines which promote curious, free expression. Negative expressions can inflame the passions and can be antithetical to building a healthy community, but if the only acceptable negative expressions must be clinical in tone at worst, many legitimate expressions of content will be disqualified due to unauthorized discontent.

Thanks for the reference, by the way. I should collect a list of them. My current favorite is in my bio on here.