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.
And that’s only the lies that came to my mind while typing.
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.
If the same quote replaced 'Islamist' with another faith, would it have also been brushed off as "right to free speech"?
Jesus violently acts out in Matthew 21:12-13
Slavery is encouraged in Exodus 21:2-11
The crusades were done in the name of Christianity, with the consent of the Church.
The Catholic Church has been involved in numerous sexual assault of minors over the past 50 years alone.
We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very segments of their core beliefs.
Let's please not get started about sexism in major religions. The New Testament is rife with sexism, as even a cursory Google search would have revealed to you. Here's just one example:
Ephesians 5:22–24: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church... Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands".
Unless you are willing to scrutinize other religions as you would Islam, then you are being intellectually lazy at best, a bigot at worst.
B) The section you reference outlines the biblical perspective on the roles within marriage. The concept of submission is presented as a voluntary act, reflecting the relationship between Christ and the church. the biblical view encourages understanding it as a partnership where both spouses honor and respect each other’s roles. This section serves as a foundation for discussions on marriage, emphasizing both the responsibilities and the spiritual significance of the marital relationship.
As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally. This is also why we have hundreds, if not thousands of flavors of Christianity - they all interpret the bible differently because many of the translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar.
B) "The concept of submission is presented as a voluntary act" What is written in any faith's texts is imposed on its followers, whether it was intended to be voluntary or not. We can only speculate how many millions of women were instructed to submit to their husbands as if he was God himself. This indoctrination starts as soon as children are old enough to attend church and continues as long as they go to church. There are obviously progressive leaders in any faith, but that tends to be the exception, rather than the rule.
"the biblical view encourages understanding it as a partnership where both spouses honor and respect each other’s roles" The dominant view among Christians in America today is "complementarianism", which sounds a lot like what you're saying. It's designed to appear at first glance as equality, but really means that women are restricted to domestic grunt work while men control all the levers of power: All roles of authority in the church, in business, and of course still telling what their wives and children to do at home.
The fact that you even say "honor and respect *each other's roles" strongly suggests you believe that a woman's role is to be, in essence, subjugated to her husband, limited to giving birth, raising children, and taking care of all the husband's emotional and logistical needs. Correct me if I'm wrong!
"As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally... translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar."
This is a fine perspective to have. But OP was happy to demonize all of Islam based on a few quotes with seemingly no account of their historical or religious context. Virtually any religion can be
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Houri_(Heavenly_Virgin)
Islam's version of Jesus literally had sex slaves, taken from cities he himself personally wages war against.
Different religions have different points of view, and it's OK to point that out and to say 'these things suck and make me not think very highly of the religion or it's followers'.
This site does that with Mormonism and Scientology. We can also do this with Islam too, a religion founded by a slaver war monger who had sex slaves, and whose teachings say women are a sexual reward.
What I think is really interesting is that the some of the strongest currents in Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all converging on the subjugation of women, especially the control of their bodies and their sexuality.
> We can also do this with Islam too, a religion founded by a slaver war monger who had sex slaves, and whose teachings say women are a sexual reward.
A helpful reminder to you that Christianity was founded by a man who never married, never had children, and lived poor his whole life. Something literally no one within Christianity espouses today. It is ignorant to assume that Muslims all aspire to live like Mohammad when virtually no Christians aspire to live like Christ.
Virtually every Christian I know aspires to be as Christ like as they can. You may not see that in their actions, but in their beliefs they definitely aspire to that. Are you saying Muslims don't hold their prophet in high regard? The prophet is just symbolic?
Christians believe you should wait until marriage for sex. So they very much preach item 2 you list.
Most Christians I know follow item 3 and literally espouse it. That you should not be greedy. You should not take advantage of others. You should live life for a moral purpose, for entry to heaven, not material gain.
Christianity teaches that you can't be Jesus, that is the point of the religion. You can't be a god. You can only be the best flawed human you can, and that is good enough, and you are forgiven for those flaws, IF you TRY to be better than your base nature. It teaches that Christs life was that of a god, and yet he still took time to take care of/see the lowest among us. Not that his life was one we can do, but definitely one we should aspire to. Does Islam not teach you should aspire to be like their prophet? That his morality should be an inspiration?
The west is freely accepting of calling out Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology. But we can't examine/be critical of Islam. That is not OK. I've known way more Muslims than Scientologists. It is not a foreign/abstract religion, but a real religion present in our communities. There is a lot in Islam that needs to be called out and processed by the Muslim faithful. Tom Cruise can be called out on his faith. Mitt Romney had his faith called out a ton and that was OK. Catholics get called out all the time for being Catholic. We can call out other religions too without it suddenly being racist/bigoted. No, it's calling out if a religion has some crappy beliefs/justifications and saying 'I'm not sure about a person who believes these things as a core part of their identity'.
All that said I would love to see Mamdani as mayor of New York. His religion/acts done under it shouldn't define him, just like with Tom Cruise, Mitt Romney. We're all people making our way, not caricatures defined externally.
Edit: First address the wrong in question. And a phobia is an irrational fear. What’s the sentence for apostasy or blasphemy in this faith? It’s death. That’s a very valid, rational fear.
> We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very discriminatory segments of their core texts
and then ignored that most politicians in the US are not Muslim. So again I'm asking you - do you actually believe what you wrote (for all religions), or are you singling out Mamdani and his religion because you're a bigot? I'm having your "honest discussion."
Edit: your original response was just the first sentence, and the edit added that you're scared of Muslims. Not sure that's the flex you think it is.
If you want an "honest discussion" then be honest about your reasons for being scared of Islam and not the other religions which dominate US politics. Pointing out your hypocrisy in singling out Muslims isn't "whataboutism" - it's the honest debate you're looking for.
This is about your personal fears of a candidate's religion and not his actions. Otherwise (if this were actually about your fear of indoctrination and dogma) you'd be spouting this same rhetoric for all politicians who believe in Abrahamic religions. Again, hypocrisy. Or did I miss where you said Christianity should be singled out and denounced by the UN?
The general position of Christians seems to be that God lying is OK, however lying to them is a sin. But, Christians lie all the time, so, seems like actually the rule is "Lie but pretend it's a sin if anybody else does it" which is consistent with God and their own behaviour and indeed consistent with lying about Mamdani...
Oh dear! That's quite concerning.
It certainly would be a pretty terrible thing if someone capable of exploiting female captives and "distributing booty" acquired a position of power in the USA.
One shudders to even imagine such a situation.
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.
>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...
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.
The economic policies of Weidel and Höcke contradict each other.
They are only high in the polls because they don’t actually have to do anything.
PyWoody•2h ago
Peacefulz•1h ago