Updating to add a new batch:
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865599993716948992
Ah well as long as it’s only cishetero white people she’s calling cockroaches that’s fine.
No it isn’t. The Hutus saw the Tutsis as oppressors too; the Nazis saw the Jews as all-powerful and oppressive; othering dehumanizing language is not always aimed downward.
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865600185627426817
That’s a peculiarly dense question. Historically, “cockroach” has been a racist epithet, but the word isn’t inherently limited as such. It’s a fungible epithet; it works to dehumanize anyone.
______________________________________
Zoé Samudzi says it’s fine to call people cockroaches.
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865569692097724416
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865570989366575104
It’s not “fake” and it’s not “offended.” She sounds like Rush Limbaugh. It’s a principled criticism of using othering language like that, with a note of the way it has been used by e.g. the Nazis, Hutus inciting genocide against Tutsis, Katie Hopkins inciting loathing of migrants.
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865571628624650242
That’s just a deflection. It’s like shouting “But her emails!”
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865571838939742209
There’s no “pretending” about it. “Cockroaches” does in fact have a history of being a precursor to genocide.
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865573070169194497
Not the point. The point is that it’s not ok to call people cockroaches.
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865573307935973376
Well that’s embarrassing for the editors.
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865574282327236615
Her “argument” is of no interest. What interests me about her is her way of bullying people on social media. The fact that she calls them “cockroaches” is the subject, while her “argument” is not.
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865575216570785794
https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/865575456539525120
Yes, indeed it is. It’s very racialized. Why, exactly, is that funny? Why the lol?


