I’m sure he’s the only person in venture capital with extremely bigoted views and that there is nothing about working in the industry itself that ruins people’s brains while also giving them the power to ruin all of our lives /s
Shaun Maguire is a closeted white nationalist.
Bigoted shithead gets called out and doubles down, what a surprise (to no ine really). I would be very surprised if there are any consequences.
Someone please educate me - what is the hate speech and bigotry in calling someone an islamist? I have heard people describe fundamentalist Muslims that way, in the same way you would use “evangelical” or “fundamentalist mormon”. Obviously that doesn’t fit Mamdani! But it doesn’t strike me as a particularly egregious insult. Looking for clarity, not down votes and insults, please.
“Mamdani comes from a culture that lies about everything,” Maguire posted on X on July 4. He included a screenshot referencing The New York Times’ reporting about how Mamdani marked his identity on a college application.
“It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda,” Maguire wrote in a post.
Now imagine if he instead compared all white people to Nazis and used Nazi as a dog whistle.
It’s hate speech. There being real Islamists or Nazis in the world doesn’t change the intention.
Islamist describes someone who advocates for a political ideology that seeks to implement Islamic principles in government and society. As someone running for this type of position, it’s insulting to insinuate that these are his motives.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I get that it is insulting, and clearly incorrect as applied to Mamdani. The part I don’t understand is how this particular insult rises to the level of “hate speech”. Like, if I called you a white nationalist, that would (presumably) be wrong and stupid, and pretty insulting, but not hate speech AFAIK.
Right, but if you said your white so therefore you are white nationalist without any evidence, that’s hate speech.
Because you’re basically saying we can’t trust them because they’re white.
Ok, I think I understand now. Thanks!
I’m going to hinder the complexity that is required to properly answer your question, for the sake of brevity…
Islamist=zionist=supremacist
You can say that it’s the same product in different colours.
As to this case in particular… It’s a racist trying to call someone a racist to distract from the fact that this is a capitalist that doesn’t like a socialist, because power doesn’t concede and it hates sharing.
Mamdani is actually succeeding at connecting the elite class to all the societal issues in the population’s eye.
So… It’s time for whistling in the racists through the post 9/11 phobia. Which in New York… you can fill in the rest.
If someone wants to add more complexity to my very reductionist take, please do.
Ah ok, so if I understand correctly, you’re saying that in a vacuum the term “islamist” isn’t necessarily hate speech, but becomes hate speech because of the motivations of the guy saying it?
I don’t think white nationalists mind being called white nationalists. The same for zionists or islamists. What these drisciptors and the people who stand by them have in common is that they all share isolationism, supremacy and the disdain for otherness. These features are all intertwined and inseparable, like the three sides of a shitty triangle.
One can say being called one of those descriptors when one finds them wrong and disagreeable is obviously offensive to the person in question.
As for if it constitutes hate speech… it’s a mess. I’m not one to police language and speech.
As the defense of every hateful person is that they can just be ignorant. And how true that is. But how convenient as well.
Trying to legislate intention is impossible, and banning words is a terrible idea. And using the elusive concept of the status quo for a barometer of what is acceptable is also not a good idea at all. So… what are we left with? Allowing speech to fight back speech, basically. It’s far from perfect, but is the best we have.
But in this case, yes, this is just someone drumming up fear in the racist bias of a portion of the public.
As for if he is ignorant and believes the nonsense he speaks or doesn’t and is just mad that there’s an actual voice for the people to hinder and reduce the control of the elites, which include him and the moron tech bro brigade he’s a part of…
I would say the distinction is irrelevant.
But that’s just me.
