‘I thought it was a very punk rock thing to say’: NOFX’s (sort-of) public apology and (in)civility in defining contemporary punk rock in online spaces

Abstract

As a music genre built on the foundations of questioning the status quo, punk rock has a long history of generating controversy. While many of punk rock’s offensive moments have been accepted and applauded by fans around the world, NOFX’s comments at the 2018 Punk Rock Bowling and Music Festival about the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting were met with immediate consequences for the band, who lost several sponsorships and the ability to play their own Camp Punk in Drublic music festival one week following the incident. After footage of the band’s comments circulated, they were met with a mixed, yet heated, response from fans, with much of the conversation arguing whether or not what was said could be considered ‘punk’. Some argued these comments further solidified the band’s reputation as a punk band and are therefore imbued with an inherent right to offend, while others believed these comments were unethical, poorly timed, and pushed the boundaries of appropriateness. Through the analysis of 381 comments in response to the band’s 31 May 2018 post on their official Facebook page, this article investigates the uncivil and civil discussions of the incident and the subsequent aftermath, while also addressing the broader conversation surrounding the current ethos of punk rock within the scene in the United States today.

Just a noisy hall, where there’s a nightly brawl, and all that punk: The problematic union of craft beer and punk

“…Others still were disappointed in the band for apologizing at all (Kristiansen 2020). As will be seen, many of the comments made on social media on all sides of the argument were somewhat ugly (Bernhard 2020).…”

“…Many comments are expressed with an apparent aggression and lack of subtlety -which Bernhard acknowledges may be a result of 'the perceived anonymity that exists as a result of the sheer number of commenters on this particular post' (2020: 17). There are a number of posts that are critical of the band and, in Bernhard's (2020) perspective, more measured, although she acknowledges these comprise a relatively small proportion of the data. While most of these comments lack the unlettered style and aggression of those in support of the band, arguably they do not contain enough substance to be meaningful.…”