TxHoops

This was written by a high school friend, who graduated a year behind me, and posted on social media. As he states in the preamble, it’s lengthy but I found it worth the read. I also found it deeply relatable so I thought I would share it here for those trying to exist with the craziness going on all around us: “I know this is way too long for most of you to actually read, but for the few readers and thinkers in my orbit: I offer some (personal) thoughts on why political and cultural moderates like me are increasingly silent amidst all the violence and chaos that is rotting our great Republic. WHY I’VE STAYED SILENT ON ALL OF IT I used to imagine that someone in the political middle, someone aligned with neither of the extremes nor indifferent to public life, could speak up and help steady the discourse. I believed that moderation, reasonableness, and a willingness to hear the other side might have some purchase. But over time, watching how our public square has become not just loud but corrosively hostile, I’ve come to the conclusion that adding my voice now may well be pointless. I no longer speak if I cannot, or will not, be heard. The primary reason for my silence is simple: in this moment, the middle voice barely rises above the din. Every statement is swallowed by louder, more polarized voices peddling arrogant certainty, misplaced grievance, and unmitigated fury. When reasonable claims get drowned out by emotionally charged slogans, one is forced to ask: what is the gain in speaking at all? There is a bitter irony here: those who claim to defend “free speech” frequently turn on moderates who insist on nuance. The common tack taken by the most vocal on both sides is to invoke free-speech rhetoric only when it serves their side and may turn harshly on dissenters otherwise. The Harper’s Magazine editorial “Letter on Justice and Open Debate” (2020) warned that “[t]he intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty” now infects both sides. So, increasingly, moderate voices stay mute, partly out of self-defense: if your voice will only be used as a target, why volunteer it? There is a second, deeper reason that I remain silent. In extreme environments, reasoned argument loses traction. When people are primed by anger, fear, or identity-based tribalism, they respond not to evidence but to narrative, symbolism, and emotional resonance. If a moderate speaks in calm tones, they risk seeming weak or irrelevant. If they raise their voice, they risk being absorbed into the very hell they wished to escape. In that sense, the act of speaking may force us to adopt harsher tone, cruder frames, or safer alliances. But to do that, we sacrifice the very quality (temperance, nuance) that defines political moderation. And so I prefer silence to distortion, rejection, or complicity in the poison. There is a kind of tragic resonance here with Faulkner’s observation in The Sound and the Fury (via Quentin): “Because no battle is ever won … The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.” That line haunts me: it suggests that the spectacle of conflict lays bare our own weaknesses, not any grand moral certainty. Speaking in that field can feel like rehearsing a folly, repeating the despair. But my silence does not signify my apathy. Nor does it signify my complicity (though, admittedly, silence sometimes serves complicity). Rather, it is a recognition of my limits and the dangers I see in shallow participation. I still observe, read, and reflect. Sometimes I counsel others or intervene quietly. But I no longer assume that public utterance is the same as influence. As a moderate, I’ve come to feel that meaningful change, if it ever happens, will not come from the loud center but from the margins pushing morality, from trust reknit in communities, and from slow, patient civic repair. The public arena is too polluted, too weaponized, to welcome a voice of neither fury nor absolutism. Thomas Jefferson counseled, “Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially in politics.” He was not denying political engagement, but warning that the constant clamor of politics can drown out inner reason. I take that advice seriously now. So here I remain, publicly silent, though not disengaged. I judge that when the cost of speech is loss of integrity—or worse, being a caricature in someone else’s war—it is sometimes less damaging to the soul to stay quiet. I am not proud of this silencing. But it is what remains to someone in the middle who still wants to learn, to reflect, and to preserve some interior coherence. If ever the air clears, if reason again finds traction, I may speak. But until then, I wait.”

I agree 100 percent with you on that! (Although I wouldn’t classify myself as a “lefty” lol - those folks wouldn’t give me a card if they saw some of the ballots I cast 😉.) And the feeling is mutual. We do disagree on a lot of issues but I always am interested in your opinions and appreciate your insight. I’m sad that’s a rarity in today’s world.

Correct as I originally stated in my first post ITT supporting ABC’s right to suspend, fire him, whatever. The post you quoted, or the exact portion you quoted, however, was the line dealing with a governmental official; specifically the FCC chair using his position to suppress speech. Which coincidentally was the whole point of the article that was linked where Ted Cruz was also criticizing him for the same reason I was. Every time I come to this board, usually takes about 24 hours for me to remember why it’s been weeks or sometimes months since my last visit 😂

Yep, just as bad. Although you miss the distinction that Twitter isn’t government owned. I just love being in the middle while the hypocritical idiots on the fringes of both sides continue to play whataboutism. Super productive.

[Hidden Content] ABC can fire an employee that’s bad for business based on speech or whatever. A government official using his position to exert pressure on the network to do so is a free speech violation. Ted Cruz is right. You can’t be a champion of smaller government and support this kind of BS.

Just to be clear, a free speech violation would be if he was arrested for what he said. ABC has a right to terminate him like any employee. Most in this state are at will employees. He has a contact. He will sue them. They will claim they fired him for cause. They will pay him millions of dollars to go away. Poor Jimmy. (And to be clear, there are not many who champion free speech more than me.)

[Hidden Content]

I’m far from a conspiracy theorist but, like @baddog and @Ty Cobb, really looked like a professional job to me. And the timing while this vote is happening may be just a coincidence. On the other hand some argue there are no coincidences…

I suspected the same as you buddy. Incidentally, while the nation is consumed with lobbing grenades back and forth over this tragic event, the Senate voted to block release of Epstein files. Only GOP members of senate voting in favor of transparency were Hawley and Rand Paul.

Sorry. As I said, at some point, I got frustrated and skipped to the end of this thread. Glad you also mentioned

I’m hoping they actually have the right guy this time. I was leaning with some of you that it looked more and more like a professional job. Hopefully we know the truth. I am going to post one thing here though in general. Reading this thread is almost as depressing as social media, on both sides. At least no one is celebrating a man’s murder here that I’ve seen. But those of you who are proclaiming it’s only the liberals or the Dems who do this need to expand your source of information or remove your head from the sand or your nether regions, as applicable. Specifically, I would direct your attention to the murder of Melissa Hortman, the speaker of Minnesota’s House of Representatives and her husband, both democrats (oh and their dog). The man indicted for their murder, is a self proclaimed evangelical Christian. He allegedly targeted them and other prominent democrats in Minnesota because of their politics. I didn’t read every single post in this thread so I apologize if this has already been mentioned. But these murders occurred less than 90 days ago. I did go back through this page and couldn’t find a thread dedicated to these senseless killings. I am very glad that I didn’t find one blaming Republicans and/or evangelical Christians for their deaths. Because that would be as dumb and/or unfair as blaming an entire party or segment of a part for Charlie’s death. We know next to nothing at this point other than a good man, husband and father was senselessly executed. And while I think a lot of many of you who post here, whether I agree or disagree with you, if you are one of those who rushes to get to a keyboard and politicize these tragedies, I hate to break it to you but YOU are part of the problem.

Wow. That’s a heckuva stat.

What an idiot! 😉

Don’t sports bet unless I’m at a casino. But I was at the Nugget last weekend so took a few futures: Clemson over 10.5 wins +120 Klubnik to win Heisman +900 Nussmeier to win Heisman +900 (Also put in a few Emmy bets but we won’t get into that.)

Bullets? Well come back and look at this…

His last response, which was hilarious I thought, signaled his feeling on Obama (when Maher said banning Senators from running for president would have prevented JFK and Obama from being such - “I can live with that”.)

Thought I would post something on here from one of the last of the true conservatives, George Will. Whether politics or baseball, I’ve always enjoyed reading his stuff. A national treasure.

.

That’s saying something because that kid from BC can play. If he’s hanging with him, he’s going to be a big asset sooner rather than later.

UTSA won’t be far behind I predict. They’ve been in talks I know. 7th biggest market in the country and the 2nd biggest in Texas behind Houston now…definitely a plum for TV negotiations.

They have around 20 if these in the UK/Ireland. Some aren’t even for a specific holiday, just called a “Bank Holiday.”

I really wish they would bracket the teams at the CWS based on seeding. I get LSU and Arkansas were the 3 and 6 seeds but they also the two highest seeds remaining. Just seems like they would make for a better overall tournament not having arguably the two best teams remaining play in the first round.

Thank you for your admission that you have just been trolling this past year and that you do, in fact, agree with those of us who think the powers that be have Lamar going in the right direction. Kind of a weird thing to troll about but to each his own. No one has said there isn’t room for improvement (there always is) or that the Southland conference is a juggernaut (although we all agree Lamar is situated and competing against schools it should be competing against). But I believe Jeff O’Malley was a home run hire unlike some of the previous ADs (certainly including his immediate predecessor). This is also directly attributable to Lamar President Jaime Taylor who I also believe is the best Lamar has had at that position in decades. I too would love to see Lamar win their tournament and get to play a game in March Madness (they aren’t upsetting a top 20 team like McNeese did unless they get a few million a year to go out and buy players like the Cowboys are able to do), or get to play in a regional NCAA baseball tournament. But just because you don’t finish first doesn’t mean your season is a failure. “If you ain’t first, your last,” after all, was the mantra of a fictional character in a comedy that was premised on what an embecile he was.

No one once has said the SLC is a strong conference. You’ve been having that convo with yourself, specialsal