Not just really smart people. Very rich people (usually second-or-beyond-generation rich. First-generation rich folks aren't usually that way -unless they are polymaths).
They feel that they can say whatever the hell they want, and no one can hold them to account (and they are frequently correct).
https://web.archive.org/web/20221027181005/https://www.sequo...
Highlights: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/101sjn2/imagine_b...
- said some bigoted things on X about Islam (the entire religion) and
- some racist and culturally stereotyping / xenophobic / Islamophobic stuff by "[Mamdani is brown therefore he is XYZ culture which itself is a bad culture]" (my summary also from the X tweet) logic.
Maguire is a MAGA supporter, so the projection of lying is... interesting.
In contrast, Maguire (like other partners at Sequoia who are actually writing checks) has skin in the game through the checks he writes and whether they pan out or they don't. In light of that, setting aside his views (which you may agree or disagree with politically), I view his controversy as being most likely a calculated marketing maneuver to improve or maximize the signal to noise in his deal flow. It's hard for me as an outsider to say whether that's working for him or not, but his track record suggests that he's not having problems with his deal flow as a result.
That said -- the material comment at the end of the article does make a lot of sense. While this departure may not affect Sequoia that much, Maguire's position may sour many of the Middle East sovereign wealth funds that form some of the largest parts of Sequoia's LP base. If their discontent with Maguire's rhetoric ends up being more important to them than Sequoia's returns, that may well pose a far more material issue to Sequoia and they will be forced to act.
why is it that tech bros will bend over backwards to find "good-faith" interpretations of the most obviously stupid shit. like bro have you literally never heard the phrase "confirmation bias"? you know it's possible he could just be a lucky idiot right?
> In an interview with the Caltech Heritage Project, Maguire reported that he earned a 1.8 GPA in high school and failed his Algebra 2 course, and that his admission to Stanford University depended on letters of recommendation.
1. The fact that he cheated his way into Stanford is completely irrelevant when considering whether he cheated his way into Caltech
or
2. No dummies graduate PhD programs, even T10 PhD programs, just like no dummies are admitted to T10 BS programs
or both.
I hope you understand that one or both of these perspectives is either the height of naivety or more of that backbending work I was talking about before.
If I had the platform Maguire had, I'd likely it in a different direction. But I'm not him so who cares? He has achieved significant academic and professional outcomes not in spite of but likely because of the way he is.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're an unaccomplished idiot no matter how gratifying and simplifying that would be. And I think it's really unfortunate that people let their resentment of others outside their tribe (and often their inability to perceive their tribal filters) get in the way of accurately perceiving reality as it is and not the way they wish it worked. It stunts their intellectual development and maturation into an adult, and I think it's just such a waste.
so i guess you didn't read anything i wrote on that matter. ok.
To go one step further, I think I recall recently that Sequoia also moved to an evergreen RIA structure (as well as several other large funds such as a16z, Lightspeed, Thrive, etc), so that's even less of a concern and makes it possible for these firms to capture exits in the evergreen structure and recycle it into earlier stage funds.
Maybe I went overboard trying to soften how non-material this event really seems.
If the same quote replaced 'Islamist' with another faith, would it have also been brushed off as "right to free speech"?
Kind of ironic to see this generalization and denigration of all Christians.
Still waiting for that "total rewrite" of Twitter.
There’s a big fuss over a potential mayor of New York that has the right losing their minds. To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions. Truly bizarro world stuff.
Two of the three principals in this story are based in California and employed by a Californian firm.
It’s foul on both sides. One for a partner to use that platform as a soap box for hate.
The other, having to deal with the fallout and just quitting. Ruining their flow and possibly upending their lives.
Standing up for what’s right sometimes costs you everything.
Isn't that rational? If you found that a colleague had views you found personally abhorrent AND you had the luxury of being able to walk away from the job, wouldn't you?
The tragedy of modern work life (and the current job market!) is that the vast majority of people do not have that luxury, and hence are stuck in the jobs they hate. But I expect the COO of a large VC probably has several lifetimes' worth of that luxury stashed away.
I consider that to be immature and highly unprofessional.
It used to be that professionalism considered the realm of private opinion to have no bearing on whether you could work with someone. It also used to be that we might abhor your opinion but defend your right to say it. Now we cannot even work with someone who has impure opinions. Nor do we have any barrier between our private lives and work now, apparently.
Maybe the best option is, as you indicate, to use discretion when breaking the barrier between your private and work lives. However, airing your opinions on a public forum with your public identity largely precludes having such barriers.
I do not see why "has the right to say something" and "everybody has to refuse to change their behavior towards this person in any way" are supposed to be the same thing.
Like seven or eight years ago I was at lunch at work with a sister team of ours. They had an intern who decided at lunch to announce that he was a fascist and that gay people were degenerates who were ruining society. Should the team have just said "huh that's quirky" and moved on? What of the gay people on the team who'd now be needing to work with somebody who openly thought that they were filth and expressed this at work?
Now instead of an intern, imagine that this was somebody's boss. Or the CEO. Is it really unprofessional to leave rather than choosing to work for and enrich somebody like that?
Yeah, I'd prefer not to work with somebody with these bigoted beliefs.
>Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire over racist, anti-Muslim remarks posted on social media.
> In a tweet about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Maguire said Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.” Maguire later doubled down on his remarks and responded to public criticism with vague threats, writing to one individual critical of his remarks, “You may not know this… but I’ve been watching you.”
https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-calls-for-firing-of-s...
Replace "X" with "marketing" and you're back in the mainstream. Religions are all the same ultimately, no matter the idol they worship.
This article has some details: https://www.businessinsider.com/shaun-maguire-sequoia-vc-gop...
> Following Trump's felony conviction last year, Maguire announced he'd back Trump in the 2024 election and would write his campaign a $300,000 check. In total, he donated about $800,000 to Republican causes last year, according to data from Open Secrets. Once Trump was elected, Maguire aided in the transition by interviewing candidates for positions in the defense department, The New York Times reported.
I doesn't matter how smart, compassionate, empathetic, creative or dynamic you are. As soon as you expose yourself to the algorithms you become infected. The more exposure the deeper the infection.
The tricky part is figuring out how to still collaborate and live side by side with people you vehemently disagree with.
Super simple: both sides engage in good faith. If one sides fails to do so...well we are still exploring the proper solution to that.
They should have tossed him. They didn’t and now the way get to deal with the fallout of tacitly endorsing his positions.
https://www.semafor.com/article/04/27/2025/the-group-chats-t...
PyWoody•3mo ago
Peacefulz•3mo ago