Thursday, October 19, 2006

Don't step to Jeff Tweedy

So, basically the best songwriter in the country had a fan come up and try to hug him when they were playing a show in Springfield, MO. Here are a few rules on how to deal with the band:

Rule One, don't mess with Wilco, cuz they will provide the beat down-

Rule Two, don't mess with Wilco, cuz if you do, Jeff Tweedy will get really sad-

Hat tip to the most Irish person on the planet.


Anonymous said...

Would this be a cool post if it wasn't a rock star, but some kids fighting? Why do celebrities get the free pass to do whatever they want, and we not only don't do anything, but we think it is cool to pass on to our friends? Who's the bastard, an overly affectionate fan, or Jeff Tweedy, a spoiled star who feels bad for himself. Boo Hoo, Poor Tweedy! Notice the spike in school violence? Related to our increasingly militarized society? But, hey those two types of violence are not ok, 'cause 1] they are not as lethal, and 2] those kids/soldiers aren't famous!

Broca said...

In civil society would it be permissible to grab someone from the back that you didn't know? For example, if I got on the train today and some drunk stanger tried to suddenly hug me from behind, it would certainly be permissible for me to a) get angry and b)defend myself.

You are simply incorrect to assume this is a product of a violent society. It is the product of the dissonance inherent in celebrity culture. The fan believes that he and Jeff Tweedy are friends and the consequent physical contact is warrented, when in reality there is no interpersonal connection.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight: You seriously think that if someone hugs you, you are allowed to hit him in the head? I don't think I would want to be your lawyer. Get angry? sure. Hit a fan expressing affection in an innapropriate manner? A cause to celebrate? Not in my book. Maybe Tweedy is even legally ok? But ethical? I don't think so, even though you may feel that he was more justified if you are a fan.

"You are simply incorrect to assume this is a product of a violent society." Really? You can prove without a doubt that I am "simply incorrect," or that you favor your own opinion? You may BELIEVE in your opinion, and have some correlational studies that support that, but it doesn't mean that my opinion is "simply incorrect."

Broca said...

You are assuming that the fan's action should be easily understood as a hug and as an expression of affection, in the moment. It doesn't seem like either of these assumptions are correct. Fans (incidentally, this term is derived from fanatic) do crazy things. They stalk, they physically attack, they make accusations and some even go as far and shoot the President.

The reason why I stated that you are simply incorrect is that there is no legitimate theoretical/conceptual mechanism to explain your point of view, outside of its inherent "truthiness". Mine is explained via parasocial interactions and fits this situation well.


Anonymous said...

Ok, where to start?

1- In your last post you said "You are assuming that the fan's action should be easily understood as a hug." You are saying that it is not a hug? Then why does your original post say "So, basically the best songwriter in the country had a fan come up and try to hug him." Now it's an attack because it suits your argument? Also, since you seem to have an "empirical" bend, what makes you say it wasn't affectionate?

2- Your patronizing tone in "simply incorrect" is ridiculous. There is no "no legitimate theoretical/conceptual mechanism to explain your point of view?" Really? There is no evidence of a double standard for stars? Kobie Bryant anyone? There also is no "theoretical basis" in thinking that we have an increase in school violence in the last few months? Also, I don't think having an opinion that it is weak to think this video is cool is something I need a "theoretical evidence" for, it's just my opinion. Just because I don't have a citation for thinking that the militarization of our country is increasing person-to-person violence in our communities doesn't make it not a plausible theory.

Think about the title of your blog posting- "Don't step to Jeff Tweedy." Doesn't sound like you are saying "poor tweedy was attacked by a deranged fan."

No kidding that fan comes from fanatic. Do you assume all readers of this blog are idiots? So because fan is a derivative of the word fanatic, does that mean that every fan that jumps on stage is deranged, or that any fan is capable of "shooting the president." What does that make you?

Broca said...

1. Evaluations for someone else's behavior are neither uniform nor static. As an outside observer, my own assessment of the situation is that an overeager fan tried to hug an unsuspecting performer onstage. The fan who got hit, probably saw his own actions as entirely earnest and good. He just wanted to show his appreciation for Jeff Tweedy, so he hugged him. Jeff Tweedy, on the other hand, seemed to get very scared when a complete stranger grabbed him from behind, as I would to. In the moment, he had no idea what this person's intentions were and this is why he was perfectly justified, both legally and ethically, to react the way he did.

2. Just so I understand your argument, you are saying that this incident is the rational consequence of a militarized society and is, in some sense, equivalent to the current rash of school shootings and/or the alleged anal raping of a young woman? Then yes, you are still simply incorrect. And while you are certainly free to have your own opinion, if you have no substantive logical reason to believe the things you do, then it is typically best to keep it to yourself.

3. I did not post this video because I thought it was 'cool' that there was a violent act. I posted it because it was ironic. In my own experience in meeting Jeff Tweedy and reports from friends who have also met him, he is incredibly quiet and extremely polite. I framed him as a bad-ass because this is exactly what he isn't.

4. My statement about where the term 'fan' comes from was not an attempt to be condescending. I brought up the etymology of the word, because it helped to shape my understanding of the issue.