On this message board, a poster stated that the six Justices in the majority were religious nutjobs, or somesuch. Being a Catholic or Anglican is nutty? That kind of attitude against the Other, can, and unfortunately has, led to violence, and has throughout human history.
Also, are people targeting Catholic churches for some other reason than that the churches are Catholic?
I believe they ment to convey that if your abortion policies are to the right of Ireland, Italy and the Taliban, you might qualify as a (religious) nutjob.
I didn’t say you needed a “how much.” You just need some sort of oppression. You were arguing that using the word “fucking” before “old white men” was hate speech.
There is this movement among some white people to try and make out like racism is just as big a problem for them as it is for other groups. They want to ignore their privilege from being the majority. You also see this with some men, and some rich people.
Hate speech isn’t just any bigotry. It’s a specific kind of harmful bigotry. It doesn’t apply when someone says “fucking old white men.” Maybe if it was “let’s kill all the white men” or something, you’d have a better case.
Some Catholics or Anglicans are nutty. This is obviously commentary on the extreme fundamentalist beliefs held by these specific people. It’s an assertion that these people are religious nutjobs just as the Taliban are religious nutjobs. If you’re going to attempt to protect bad ideas that derive from religion by mischaracterizing an attack on those ideas as an attack on the broad cultural identity of millions of people you’re undermining your credibility in identifying “hate speech”.
Are they?
I’m not persuaded that this happened as you describe. What evidence do you have?
Or attempting to debase the meaning of the concept “hate speech”.
Can there be anti-Catholic hate speech? Sure. Are we surrounded by examples of it in this debate? No.
OK, so tell me more about these threats that Sonia Sotomayor is receiving.
She’s not REALLY Catholic.
No true Scotsman Catholic
She’s Hispanicatholic. That’s a totally different religion.
Hate speech is hate speech.
Yes, of course the Mods will consider factors before making it a Note or Warning or whatever.
You don’t think seniors have issues? The #1 target of scams and fraudsters. Being taken advantage off, con jobs, mobilty and health issues, etc.
But I do not care about whether or not YOU consider a group oppressed or not.
Too many use that an excuse for bigotry.
Some Muslims, some Jews, and some atheists are nutty.
It did. They originally said all were, in fact.
It would be really helpful to link to that post, since this is a message board and you can do that.
Name all the Muslims, Jews and atheists on the Supreme Court.
Indeed they are, as in the example I gave of the Taliban. The specific religious nutjobs who were being called out here for their extremist beliefs were Christians.
Do you have an actual point?
Thank you. 
Stephen Breyer (retiring), is Jewish, as is Elena Kagan.
However, are we limiting this discussion to only hate speech vs Justices???
Are you for or against hate speech?
Tautologies are tautological. You are saying something trivially true, like “cats are cats,” which adds nothing to the discussion except to clarify that you are not going to discuss any sort of context or nuance.
Strangely, I am no more persuaded by your repeating the uncited assertion than I was by the original uncited assertion. To forestall a possible objection: if a third person repeats the uncited assertion, I will not be persuaded.
Citing the assertion would be persuasive.
It’s been done by crowmanyclouds.
Yep–that was persuasive. Thanks, @crowmanyclouds! Way better than repeated uncited assertions.
Now that we can see the context, let’s look at how D’anconia misrepresented it.
What @crowmanyclouds should have cited was something posted two posts lower:
So, someone said six were religious nutjobs, and specifically said that Sotomayor (Catholic) was not a nutjob.
It’s explicitly clear that that’s not what Toxgoddess meant. Whether @D_Anconia misrepresented them intentionally or unintentionally is something only he can answer.