I’m not a Republican. I like Mamdani,I would have voted for him if I were living in NYC. I don’t actually think this tweet on Xitter is inherently racist.
Most people believe 9/11 was caused by radical Muslim jihadists hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings. Radical Muslim jihad still exists. It is not like there are zero radical Muslims out there who want to destroy Western society, subjugate women, kill all homosexuals, kill all atheists, and institute Sharia law. That is not actually a made up trope of the greedy right to suppress the lower classes, that is in fact reality. There are still women not allowed to learn math in some some countries.
The fear Gulianai has, which I do not think is irrational to consider, is that by voting for a liberal Muslim, it’s going to lead to policies that make it easier for radical jihadists to take root in America, that somehow a liberal Muslim mayor may embolden radical Muslims with extremist views or make it easier for radicals to take root within more insular Muslim communities in NYC, even if it’s just a result of a cultural shift in which people do not fear radical jihadists. (This is not my opinion of what will happen!) I do not believe this view is inherently racist or Islamaphobic. I don’t think it’s wrong to have conversations about this, as long as it’s done while realizing that many NYC Muslims are incredibly nice good people who support women’s education, LGBT+ rights, and liberal values.
It would also be understandable if someone viewed this xitter post as Islamaphobic and racist and disagreed.
Mamdani is the political polar opposite of radical jihadists. Radical jihadists are regressive. Mamdani is incredibly progressive. Radical jihadists have far more in common with Donald Trump than they do with Zohran Mamdani. Bernie Sanders has very similar policies to Mamdani, yet no one has ever claimed his policies would “make it easier for radical jihadists to take root in America”
The only thing jihadists have in common with Mamdani is generally skin color and that they’re Muslim
Put whatever label you want on it, but this perception that you, Giuliani, and others push is based on nothing other than his skin color and religion
If a liberal white Christian got elected, and more Christians felt comfortable living in an area, and as a result some people were concerned there could be more extremist groups like Proud Boys or MAGA, I don’t think it would be an irrational fear. You are assuming that I think a liberal has a lot in common with a radical. Instead, I think radicals may feel more comfortable when someone of their own race or religion is in charge, even if that person is radically politically different.
Also, I didn’t publish that tweet, I’m a liberal, I am just trying to explain his views. There are also other views of Republicans that I disagree with that I don’t think are inherently irrational to just discuss, even if the viewpoint is not correct. For example, I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but I don’t think it’s irrational for Republicans to merely discuss whether abortion could involve fetal pain that is cruel.
The fear Gulianai has, which I do not think is irrational to consider, is that by voting for a liberal Muslim, it’s going to lead to policies that make it easier for radical jihadists to take root in America, that somehow a liberal Muslim mayor may embolden radical Muslims with extremist views or make it easier for radicals to take root within more insular Muslim communities in NYC
This is absolutely irrational and islamophobic lol what the actual fuck are you talking about
When two persons/groups choose to use the same label, it becomes harder for anyone external to differentiate them easily.
Calling the people that confuse the two as “irrational” and bigoted isn’t going to clarify anything, and will likely cause them to assume you are not allied with them.
Dismissing people who have concerns that those confusions might be used by bad actors is just gross naivete.
But, certainly, restricting the political power (or human rights) of a particular based on their chosen labels–even if those labels are confusing–when they espouse tolerant views and act in tolerant ways IS bigoted.
The closest analog I can some up with is “Catholic”. If you just use that label, I think I am justified in assuming you do not value bodily autonomy (particular of women), and are therefore not a tolerant member of society. I’d certainly welcome a “Catholic” that makes it clear they reject intolerant Catholic dogma, but the existence of tolerant "Catholic"s does make it easier for intolerant Catholics to acquire and use political power. Of course, “Muslim” and “Islam” don’t come with quite as formal an organization or consistent a dogma, so it’s even more confusing.
Bro there are 2 billion Muslims in the world. They span all sorts of different beliefs, value systems and thoughts. To think all Muslims are terrorists or even conservative and to group them all with negative connotations is literally what Islamophobia is. It makes as much sense as me believing all American’s are mass shooters.
Restricting the political power (ability to run in, and win elections) of someone because they are Muslim is Islamophobic. So, I’d say this tweet is Islamophobic, since it seems to be advocating for that action.
I understand the fear of violence from people that justify their violence in religion, particularly (but not exclusively) Islam. But, we have to be very careful with restricting political power based on mere label-sharing.
I’m not a Republican. I like Mamdani,I would have voted for him if I were living in NYC. I don’t actually think this tweet on Xitter is inherently racist.
Most people believe 9/11 was caused by radical Muslim jihadists hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings. Radical Muslim jihad still exists. It is not like there are zero radical Muslims out there who want to destroy Western society, subjugate women, kill all homosexuals, kill all atheists, and institute Sharia law. That is not actually a made up trope of the greedy right to suppress the lower classes, that is in fact reality. There are still women not allowed to learn math in some some countries.
The fear Gulianai has, which I do not think is irrational to consider, is that by voting for a liberal Muslim, it’s going to lead to policies that make it easier for radical jihadists to take root in America, that somehow a liberal Muslim mayor may embolden radical Muslims with extremist views or make it easier for radicals to take root within more insular Muslim communities in NYC, even if it’s just a result of a cultural shift in which people do not fear radical jihadists. (This is not my opinion of what will happen!) I do not believe this view is inherently racist or Islamaphobic. I don’t think it’s wrong to have conversations about this, as long as it’s done while realizing that many NYC Muslims are incredibly nice good people who support women’s education, LGBT+ rights, and liberal values.
It would also be understandable if someone viewed this xitter post as Islamaphobic and racist and disagreed.
Mamdani is the political polar opposite of radical jihadists. Radical jihadists are regressive. Mamdani is incredibly progressive. Radical jihadists have far more in common with Donald Trump than they do with Zohran Mamdani. Bernie Sanders has very similar policies to Mamdani, yet no one has ever claimed his policies would “make it easier for radical jihadists to take root in America”
The only thing jihadists have in common with Mamdani is generally skin color and that they’re Muslim
Put whatever label you want on it, but this perception that you, Giuliani, and others push is based on nothing other than his skin color and religion
If a liberal white Christian got elected, and more Christians felt comfortable living in an area, and as a result some people were concerned there could be more extremist groups like Proud Boys or MAGA, I don’t think it would be an irrational fear. You are assuming that I think a liberal has a lot in common with a radical. Instead, I think radicals may feel more comfortable when someone of their own race or religion is in charge, even if that person is radically politically different.
Also, I didn’t publish that tweet, I’m a liberal, I am just trying to explain his views. There are also other views of Republicans that I disagree with that I don’t think are inherently irrational to just discuss, even if the viewpoint is not correct. For example, I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but I don’t think it’s irrational for Republicans to merely discuss whether abortion could involve fetal pain that is cruel.
This is absolutely irrational and islamophobic lol what the actual fuck are you talking about
When two persons/groups choose to use the same label, it becomes harder for anyone external to differentiate them easily.
Calling the people that confuse the two as “irrational” and bigoted isn’t going to clarify anything, and will likely cause them to assume you are not allied with them.
Dismissing people who have concerns that those confusions might be used by bad actors is just gross naivete.
But, certainly, restricting the political power (or human rights) of a particular based on their chosen labels–even if those labels are confusing–when they espouse tolerant views and act in tolerant ways IS bigoted.
The closest analog I can some up with is “Catholic”. If you just use that label, I think I am justified in assuming you do not value bodily autonomy (particular of women), and are therefore not a tolerant member of society. I’d certainly welcome a “Catholic” that makes it clear they reject intolerant Catholic dogma, but the existence of tolerant "Catholic"s does make it easier for intolerant Catholics to acquire and use political power. Of course, “Muslim” and “Islam” don’t come with quite as formal an organization or consistent a dogma, so it’s even more confusing.
Bro there are 2 billion Muslims in the world. They span all sorts of different beliefs, value systems and thoughts. To think all Muslims are terrorists or even conservative and to group them all with negative connotations is literally what Islamophobia is. It makes as much sense as me believing all American’s are mass shooters.
Restricting the political power (ability to run in, and win elections) of someone because they are Muslim is Islamophobic. So, I’d say this tweet is Islamophobic, since it seems to be advocating for that action.
I understand the fear of violence from people that justify their violence in religion, particularly (but not exclusively) Islam. But, we have to be very careful with restricting political power based on mere label-sharing.
It’s a good point.