165
Startup founders and others in tech call on Sequoia Capital to act after a partner called Zohran Mamdani an 'Islamist'
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
165 points (96.1% liked)
News
30906 readers
2866 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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!
"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.
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 descriptors 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.