HighImpactFlix offers a criticism of a Mark Dice video that applauds conservatives who have sued liberals for similar reasons that liberals have sued conservatives in the past.
Let me preface my criticism of the criticism, by saying I am a fan of both HighImpactFlix and Mark Dice. And this is not exactly a criticism per se. It's more of a counter point to his point. I agree with his comment that this really is a respectful discussion among conservatives. This is simply a different take on the discussion. For me it's about the importance of the moral high ground versus the importance of strategy and tactics.
Here's the video in question, by HighImpactFlix:
Here's the comment I just left on the Youtube video. I'll add more to it below.
I don't think Mark Dice's point is that the idea of lawsuits are good, he's talking tactics. He's talking about fighting fire with fire and using the tactics of the left to tie up the focus of the left the same way they do to conservatives. This is the playing field as it stands. The left is not above boycotts and shaming and lawsuits, so to stand back and take it while we wait for a more conservative judiciary is not an effective way to fight back.
Changing the rules through legal reform is the right goal, but in the meantime, sitting back and playing by gentrified rules while progressive liberals play by no rules whatsoever, is self defeating. President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton precisely because he fought back. This is not a criticism of your viewpoint, just adding to the discussion. I agree that any business owner should be allowed to choose to serve (or not serve) whomever they wish. The free market will sort it out - eventually.But in the meantime fighting with one arm tied behind our back is not going to work. Maybe Mark Dice's solution is not the ideal one, but it's far better than doing nothing.
HighImpactFlix suggests we do not fall into the us versus them trap. Ideally we should not. The problem with that is the same as it is with ISIS - they are already engaged in the us versus them fight.
I'm also not sure of the link he suggests between statism and people using the courts to fight back against liberal injustices to conservatives. The lack of clarity comes from him tying that part to president Trump. My assumption (and I could be mistaken) is that his view is that using the courts to force business owners to serve conservatives whom they otherwise would refuse to serve is adding to the power of the state.
If that is the case, it's too late. The courts have already begun the march towards state mandated customer service. As I mentioned in my comment, this is the playing field. If we don't like the rules of the playing field we should attempt to change them but that is a longer term goal. Let me offer an analogy.
Suppose you are the coach of a football team and you don't like the idea of field goals being part of the game. So instead of trying a field goal every time you get the ball, you either get a touchdown or punt the ball. Meanwhile the other team is not hamstrung by the same self-imposed limit. The other team has a higher percentage chance of winning the game because they have more possibilities (and likely opportunities) for putting points on the board. Especially when the referees tend to favor them. Imagine being down two points, in field goal range on the last play of the game and having to go for a touchdown for the sake of ideology. If you want to change the rules of football to exclude field goals fine. But during the game you play to win. Sort out the rules committee stuff when you are not on the playing field.