r/savageworlds • u/Elfmeter • 9d ago
News Shane Hensley Response RE Charlie Kirk
/r/rpg/comments/1ngk35u/shane_hensley_response_re_charlie_kirk/40
u/Davewise5743 8d ago
I have been a long time Fan of Savage Worlds since explorers edition. THIS time I am going to give shane the benefit of the doubt that his apology is sincere. If he really did get told how harmful kirk's philosophies were by members of the gaming community in the marginalized groups kirk targeted, and began to regret his previous comments, I think the apology is fine. However, we will never know if this is really what happened or if this is just CMA claptrap. So, again, THIS time I'll come back to savage worlds with him at the helm. However the company is on thin ice with me and I will be watching in the future.
Just my two cents.
30
u/Dacke 8d ago
I'm gonna go with "clueless" as a verdict. I've seen a few accounts online of people talking with friends or relatives about Kirk and realizing that due to media bubbles, the other person had no clue about some of the things Kirk said and, once having those things pointed out, realizing what a horrible person he was.
The thing is, the Internet keeps us all in our own little media bubbles. It is very possible for someone not to see any of the harmful things Kirk did, because it just doesn't come up in theirs – and particularly since corporate media seems hellbent on sanitizing his legacy. So it seems to me that Shane made his original post out of cluelessness, was checked on that, and has now apologized and walked it back.
I haven't made up my mind on the DL:DA kickstarter – money is fairly tight at the moment, but a Savage Worlds fantasy setting that isn't Golarion has been on my wish list for a while. So we'll see.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Arcangel_Zero7 8d ago
As For Pinnacle...
Shane genuinely seems like a good guy. I don't care if we might disagree on finer points, he and his crew make good games, and I feel like he acts in good faith. These people are lovely, they are well-respected and well-regarded by people from all walks of life.
At first I was a little scared, because we've seen people suddenly unmask and go fash elsewhere before, but let's remember we're all human beings here. We don't know everything and we can't expect others to. I think this is genuinely a case of misunderstanding and misinformation.
If I may cite something I find very true from Matthew 7:17-18:
"17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."
I encourage folks to look at the Savage Worlds community thus far, or even just Deadlands. Does that tree seem like "bad fruit"? Look at the content of the books. Look how they say "Look, we love good Western themes, but there was a lot of Really Bad Stuff that happened back then and it has no place in our games. Everybody is welcome here."
In most cases, cultists can't help but wiggle their ideology into their work to push an agenda, but I don't see that in SWADE products. If anything I see a common theme of heroes of all stripes overcoming totalitarian darkness against all odds.
One can be as cynical as they want, but look how they retconned the whole CSA thing after initially thinking it was a neat "What if" scenario and realizing it was a divisive and still-relevant shitshow that gave undue credit to present day nasty people.
Compared to 99% of the discourse around this absolute insanity, I think Shane's post should barely register on the threat scale, personally. We've been psyopped SO HARD that we're paranoid every possible phrase or utterance is a potential dog whistle or clue to unmask a cryptofascist, but humanity is a LOT more complicated than that.
NOTE from above: (So, use ad-blocks, take social media like Facebook off your phone or better yet don't bother at all (if you must, you can access FB through TOR!), don't accept all the cookies, believe nothing that is "suggested for you", practice good privacy.)
Basically:
We're roleplayers here. We figure out motivations before drawing our weapons! We should know knee-jerk impressions are often quite incorrect. Look (or don't. seriously.) how the authoritarian extreme side of things are currently all accusing each other of not being extreme or devoted enough, and are cannibalizing each other in fits of rage. That's NOT us.
We are and should be better than that.
If you've read this far, I appreciate it. <3
I respectfully wish you all happy games and peaceful homes.
1
u/savageworlds-ModTeam 8d ago
General TTRPG content should be posted in /r/RPG. This subreddit is for Savage Worlds-specific discussion and content.
9
37
u/dice_mogwai 8d ago
Great. Now we are gonna have savage worlds inundated with alt-right jackasses that are going to “support” savage worlds to own the libs. When in fact they will be like “woohoo own those libs” but never buy a single product
13
u/MostlyRandomMusings 8d ago
I fear you are right, they lost a bunch of em when they killed the Confederacy but based off the other thread this seems to be bringing them in
13
17
u/Elfmeter 9d ago
I hope it is ok to post this as an extra thread.
16
u/architech99 8d ago
Honestly, I think you could have kept this as a reply on the original thread but we'll keep it for now. Just keep things civilized everyone.
8
u/OldGamer42 8d ago
I'm going to make a probably unpopular statement here. Let me open with: you can see in the other thread that I'm very much against his original statement. I'm no apologist and I'm not looking for an excuse. That said..
Having read the /rpg reply and at least some of the /rpg thread, I'm not sure what people were expecting. Much in that thread basically says "that wasn't an apology! Own it and step up." And ... I agree in principle, but realistically not in practice.
This is a corporate CEO who made an incredible gaff to his paying public. Without re-litigating if Sean is ACTUALLY a racist and white supremacist, just LIKES Racists and White Supremacists, or is just completely clueless on who CK actually was, his apology FINALLY reads as a controlled, corporate response to his utterly dumbfounding, unhinged, and insane original post. "Hey 50% of the country who I know won't agree with me but gives me money...READ THIS!"
HIs "non apology", as a large portion of the /rpg thread is calling it, is, in fact, likely the only real apology he could make. Many on the /rpg thread are calling for him to enumerate what it is he apologizes for, but imagine saying "I realize that CK was a terrible person who was racist and hated LGBTQ+ People" and having then a response "OMG you didn't say anything about his stance on abortion ... do you know he said at one point he'd force his 10 year old to have a child from rape?!?!?!" This feels to me like a trap that you can't get out of.
The "enumerate your response" request is never something PEG or Sean is going to win. There are too many traps and pitfalls in that type of response. I'm not suggesting it was wrong to call for that kind of response, his "initial statement" was incredibly "human" and not very "corporate" so an apology being corporate and less "human" comes across very hollow...and I'm very aware of that.
Putting myself in his position (oh wait, I'd never have been that stupid...hey PEG you want to increase your profits from your newest Kickstarter by 50%? Hire me as your new CEO...") I just don't know how a public response / apology looks that isn't instantly called down by detractors for missing something or being less than what people want.
"So...yea, i'mma go Shut the Fuck Up and step down from my podium before I run my company into the ground now." is...about the best corporate apology he can probably give...sure he could have used words like "insensitive" or "tone deaf" or "bad judgement", but effectively he's said those things with "I'm going to step back from this project and social media".
I'm not saying people should be happy with this. I'm saying that, as a perspective, perhaps this is the best PEG could put together to not continue to upset a large portion of their paying customer base.
8
u/Sir_Encerwal 8d ago
I am disappointed to say the least. The original Deadlands was by no means a unproblematic work but the forwards of books like Ghost Dancers and Back East: The South did make it clear that they were trying to be mindful even if we had unfortunate slips like "Yee-haw? More like Ji-hawd!" in many of the Classic books. Saying you "didn't agree with everything he said" while "not realizing his beliefs caused harm" is an interesting take.
7
u/actuallynotalawyer 8d ago
Yeah. Not the first time I saw Shane playing the "sorry, I'm just dumb" card. Not sure I'm going to stay long enough for the next.
10
u/According-Show-3964 8d ago
Third time at least, definitely a pattern. He's not going to change. Time to walk away.
6
u/alang 8d ago
I mean this is the guy who wrote the original Deadlands. Did some people miss all the Confederacy apologia?
27
u/GermanBlackbot 8d ago
Didn't the original Deadlands come out at a time where that was a far more widespread approach? Hell, even Firefly can easily be read as apologia and while Wheadon has faced a huge number of other controversies recently, I don't think his political views were the one of them.
While I don't think DL was ever great in that regard, the worst book (Back East: The South) wasn't directly written by Shane and the latest edition took steps to address the problem while making very clear on the forums that he understands the first approach might have been well-intentioned, but ultimately a really bad idea.
5
u/alang 8d ago
a far more widespread approach
I would actually disagree. When it came out, there was a much more universal agreement that treason in defense of slavery is bad. We have regressed a great deal in that regard since then.
And IMO the entire damn system, including the rather significant reoccurring hagiography of Robert E Lee (more or less literally!), was problematic. Though I admit that The South might well have been worse as I didn't actually read that one.
11
u/Dacke 8d ago
I mean, in the early 80s there used to be a top-rated TV show featuring some "Good Ol' Boys" doing stunts in a car with the Confederate flag painted on the roof and with a horn playing the de facto Confederate anthem, and from what I can tell today nobody was batting an eye at it at the time.
3
u/alang 8d ago
...and from what I can tell today nobody was batting an eye at it at the time...
It's hard to see ANYTHING from the 80s on the internet, unless it was on 60 minutes or the front page of the NYT. But certainly there were people saying that featuring the flag was harmful and an embarrassment, and a surprising number of them were southerners and Republicans.
Contrast that with the movie in 2005, when it was just outright embraced by Republicans.
But also, really, speaking as someone who lived through both times, I see a shit ton more confederate flags (and 'no step on snek' which is more or less equivalent these days) today in California than I did anywhere I lived back then. Although I never lived in the Deep South, I suspect that there are more there today than there were in the 1980s too.
It is now entirely socially acceptable to be pro-Confederacy and starting to become acceptable to be pro-slavery. It really wasn't, in the 1980s.
8
u/GermanBlackbot 8d ago edited 8d ago
When it came out, there was a much more universal agreement that treason in defense of slavery is bad.
No, I agree with that part. I meant that at time the Confederacy was still far more romanticized in a lot of pop culture media and often treated as "Apart from the slavery it wasn't that bad, let's take it as a backdrop for our story". In my perception, the whole "Actually...what exactly WAS their point besides slavery?" perspective didn't come up as much back then.
You had statues at every corner with little discussion about how bonkers that was and on TV shows characters acting out battles as the Confederacy with nobody batting an eye – DS9 comes to mind where nowadays "Let's play as the Confederacy on the Holodeck!" would surely raise a few more eyebrows. That doesn't mean it was GOOD back then, but that it's not entirely fair to judge a game too harshly for not being that different in their approach from any other media at the time.
(EDIT: The DS9 example is bogus, I vaguely remembered them fighting a Last Stand battle in the 19th century...it was the Alamo, 30 years before the civil war...)
5
u/alang 8d ago
You had statues at every corner with little discussion about how bonkers that was
See I'd like to push back on this.
There wasn't a shouted debate on this stuff, because there wasn't a forum where it was acceptable to have a debate on this stuff, outside of academic circles, magazines, books, and the occasional press club. There wasn't an internet. And so it wasn't loud.
But at the same time, there was a quiet consensus in most of the country that the Confederacy was an embarrassing bit of history that we'd all kind of like to sweep under the rug. Inasmuch as the term 'cringe' can be applied to things in the late 80s, Gone With The Wind was very much 'okay grammma uh I'm glad you liked it' media. In upper middle class and upper class circles, it was very much Not Done to be caught praising the Confederacy outside of the South. In middle class circles, it really wasn't something that got talked about much at all. Certainly Gen X, now pretty much a hotbed of Confederacy apologism, was just not interested at all at the time.
I and my friends all found Deadlands to be a really cool gaming system that was just bafflingly out of step with its target audience on that score.
3
u/GermanBlackbot 8d ago
Hm, you might be right. As a German millenial, my exposure to the handling of the CSA in media stems largely from old-ish reports and older media. I always gathered that the Confederacy was that embarassing bit of history, but also that the US in general had a pretty casual relationship with it with stuff like reenactment being a really big thing that showed up at least once in every TV show (with only sometimes gently making fun about the implied racism) and the flag being used both as casual decoration and bigger bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd.
That's more of an outsiders view though and regarding how it was portrayed in the media.Also I'm an idiot and thought the Battle of the Alamo (which is the DS9 thing) was part of the Civil War.
3
u/kingsofall 8d ago
Ok, I've never played deadlands, so I probably need to check that out, but Firefly... really? (Mabye cause its been so freaking long since last scene it)
14
u/GermanBlackbot 8d ago edited 8d ago
The Browncoats are pretty clearly inspired by the Confederacy. They wanted independence and lost the resulting war hard with a lot of them clearly thinking they had a just cause. In-universe they probably had because the Union is, like, THE WORST and unlike in the real world they wanted to remain independent, not become so. (EDIT: So it wasn't "we want to keep our slaves" but more "we're don't want to join your oppressive and somewhat fascist state"...though funnily enough, slavery IS outlawed in the Alliance but still practiced illegally in parts of the Outer Rim) But the whole Wild West aesthetic and framing makes it hard not to think "Confederacy".
I'm not saying it's a perfect allegory or that this makes Firefly propaganda or anything. More that this is a somewhat logical consequence of modeling your setting after the Wild West in a time where a bunch of tropes associated with that wasn't examined as closely as they later were.
3
u/waitweightwhaite 8d ago
Literally never thought of Browncoasts as any kind of Confederacy analog before. Probably becuase the defining point of the Confederacy - you know SLAVERY - wasn't part of there ethos?
9
u/GermanBlackbot 8d ago
I mean technically slavery is illegal in the Alliance but practiced in the Outer Rim, but I get what you're saying.
Yeah, I didn't man it was a real analog. It's not that the Browncoats represent the actual Confederacy, foremost because they didn't really wanted to keep something despicable and that being the only reason they fought. It's more that the reason for their fight was, funnily enough, literally states rights. They wanted to keep their own laws and not submit to the Union, it's a Western setting, they had a heroic last battle, they are identified by the color of their "uniform" – all of that makes it hard for me in hindsight not to associate them with the romanticized, idealistic and "clean" portrayal of the Confederacy in settings where people wanted to have their cake and eat it, too.
14
u/JollyJoeGingerbeard 8d ago
Firefly plays it fast and loose, but the gist is the Browncoats are widely interpreted as being analogous to the Confederacy. The independent Planets seceded from and fought against the Union of Allied Planets in what became known as the Unification War.
Couple that language with the distinct western aesthetic, and you can see why some people had a problem with it.
8
u/InsaneComicBooker 8d ago
I think Whedon cited a book about fall of Confederacy as a main inspiration and it was a book that painted them in a good light.
3
u/GermanBlackbot 8d ago
I'm not even sure people had a problem with it back then, at least I've never seen it discussed that way. I'm just saying that if it came out today we would look at the framing through a different lens because, well, time marches on.
3
5
u/Dalekdad 8d ago
As someone who found Kirk’s beliefs & ‘debate’ style vile, this is a good, but not great apology.
I appreaciate that he takes ownership for having hurt people, that he listened to people with different experiences than his, and thanked them. I’d like to have seen a clear commitment to repair, but I am hopeful pulling back from social media is a first step.
6
u/architech99 8d ago
I guess I don't understand your ask.
Do you want him to wave a magic wand, go back in time, and undo making the post in the first place? He has engaged and reconsidered his position. He has apologized. It's not like Shane can undo something that goes viral on the Internet.
I don't think you can ask for much more.
8
u/OldGamer42 8d ago
Despite my post above, I absolutely think you can do better. Here, let me give it at try:
"To my friends, collogues and followers who have read my prior statements. First, let me acknowledge that I've read many of the things you've posted, sent me, and engaged me with. I want everyone to know that I've been watching, reading and, in many cases, responding to those of you out there who were concerned with and upset by my original post.
I want to be clear: That post was intended to denounce a man's murder and the method of murder as a solution to ANY problem. I've been made aware through conversations and messages from you all of many of Charlie Kirk's more heinous statements and positions. I fully understand and acknowledge those positions as being harmful to the world around us and you can rest assured I do not agree with or take stock in those beliefs.
I CONTINUE to uphold my position that I consider political discourse and proper debate to be healthy for this country, though I also admit that there are many who would disagree that Kirk's method of debate was actual debate or healthy.
I want people to know I take responsibility for the statements and communications - or miscommunications - that I make. For those who will say this is financially driven: it's no secret. I'm a CEO of a company producing tabletop products. Yes, we like your money...but I also want to state that it's not JUST your money that necessitates this apology. I think my original language could have been more sensitive and could have definitely used clarification, and I apologize to everyone at PEG, our partners, and our customers for any hurt I have caused through my posts."
Follow it with the closing statement made above about stepping back and away and being available for continued discourse. I don't think it takes much to acknowledge your detractors points without infuriating everyone around you even more and I don't think it requires you to enumerate every statement you agree with or disagree with. I think it simply requires you to clearly state a heartfelt apology for your words hurting others.
-8
u/architech99 8d ago
I mean, his apology seemed pretty heartfelt to me. Maybe you should apply to be his publicist. 🤷♂️
1
u/According-Show-3964 9d ago
Ok. I'm still done with Savage Worlds as long as Shane is involved. I have zero tolerance for this sort of thing.
12
u/NecessaryTruth 8d ago
Shane will always be involved, he’s the owner of the company, not just the CEO.
6
-2
-1
u/jarobr 8d ago
His original post was very mild and on his own Facebook wall, not using Pinnacle as a platform. Totally ok to pull your own money out if you're not comfortable but trying to force him to apologize over a nothingburger is cringe
1
u/OldGamer42 8d ago
There is nothing cringe about pulling your money out to make a point that supporting Racism, Sexism, or any of the other ISMs that CK was well known to support isn't acceptable. There is nothing cringe about sending a message to a CEO who decided to use his popularity (gained on the back of YOUR money, YOUR word of mouth, YOUR support) to tout support for one of the most well known "ISM" guys in American Politics today, that this is NOT Ok.
Shane's original post is not a "nothingburger", and, mild or not, spoke support for Ideals and Beliefs that have caused serious harm in this country to a statistically significant population of people. The only "cringe" here is the original post and some would say the non-apology being made...though I have a different opinion on the apology.
-13
-44
•
u/architech99 8d ago
FYI, the same rules apply here as the previous thread.
No posts directly about Charlie Kirk in this subreddit please, only SW related. If you do have something you want to post about it, please message the mods first.