Topic on Talk:Religions Based on Blaseball

This is a permanent link to the first version of this post. You can view later versions on the post history page.

I do not find your attempts to establish "authority" by citing your time spent playing the game, conversations outside the Wiki, or berating admins for their need to sleep are compelling. I am interested in actual harms perpetuated by the article: does it contain hurtful stereotypes? does it target a specific religion, especially one which continues to be marginalized? etc. Repeatedly stating "Some people think the Wiki is racist" is not carte blanche to label things as Problematic and trigger a deletion. People put effort into their contributions, and IMO any real harms resolved by deletion should be weighed against the chilling effects of people having their work dropped entirely. This isn't a theoretical: A lot of people have, in fact, given up contributing entirely due to these sort of gatekeeping and sanitization efforts.

That said, to be blunt: I do not think your list of concerns are valid.

I think you are reaching quite a bit by saying things like "there are three religions mentioned. there are also three Abrahamic religions. let's look at it through that lens." This is a very combative reading of the article that is not supported by the details of the three silly religions mentioned. "The Ecclesiastic Order of the Invisible Puce Unicorn" is clearly NOT an intended parody of any of the three real-world counterpart religions. Heck, one way to "resolve" this would be to add a FOURTH joke religion to the list, simultaneously expanding the article AND dispelling any notions of real-world religious comparisons. Would that solve your concerns?

The other main point made seems to be "this mentions religious violence in an unserious manner". I think we all recognize that religious violence is bad, but that should not preclude invoking the very *concept* of it in a work. Again, actual harms: does this article make light of a *specific instance* of religious violence? Is it parodying, say, the Crusades? No, it simply hand-waves at the existence of past conflict. This is not an inherently bad thing.

Reading between the lines, the core of the argument here seems to be "this page is unserious about religion, and I think that is Bad, which is why I and other 'sensitive' friends should simply be allowed to run it instead". I disagree: think this is not the way the "community" Wiki should be run.