Talk:Fidget spinner

As a weapon

I've wondered if fidget spinners would be useful when used in place of more traditional ninja throwing stars. Perhaps the author should go into a detailed discussion of that. Chunkles ☎ talk ✏️ contribs 18:37, May 14, 2017 (UTC)

Me too, maybe that could be the secret weapon of some organization and it was leaked onto the internet and got instant popularity or something, just a suggestion.--H.H. (talk) 13:11, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

I suggest Illuminati involvement. Perhaps this is their way to indoctrinate the young people of the world? MyOwnBadSelf (talk · stalk) 02:02, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Have we been here before? (1) Dropping "Illuminati" into an article is not the same thing as writing funny stuff. (2) Using Uncyclopedia to promote a meme is not funny either. (3) We are not here to indoctrinate, educate, or convert anyone, just make them laugh. Illuminati does not relate to anything about the real-world fidget spinner. That makes it random. Please read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid on how random is not the best comedy strategy. Spıke 🎙️02:11 6-Jun-17

Well thinking of it as a weapon is exactly the same thing. So is connecting it to political events in some way or another. All of this has been done to death. MyOwnBadSelf (talk · stalk) 02:15, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Thinking of a fidget spinner as a weapon - specifically, as a ninja throwing star - works in this particular case because it superficially resembles one, which is the joke. It's not totally random. Chunkles ☎ talk ✏️ contribs 22:21, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the best comedy strategy would be to use a straight man. For two reasons: (1) Since using actual humo(u)r makes the article excessively random, such as what myself and other users have suggested on this page, it might be best to, instead of talking about what it really isn't, talk about exactly what it is. (2) It makes everything else on this site sound even sillier. MyOwnBadSelf (talk · stalk) 02:30, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article from an alternate point of view is very hard to pull off, and it challenges your reader rather than simply amusing him. Usually, Uncyclopedia itself is the "straight man." It looks dead serious, until you think about what you just read. Spıke 🎙️22:41 6-Jun-17

I'm sure this would be OK on the fork. On the spoon, the rule appears to be 'If the admins like it, it's funny. If the admins dislike it, it's stupid.' MyOwnBadSelf (talk · stalk) 02:24, June 7, 2017 (UTC)

Almost anything would be "OK on the fork." The result is mostly uninteresting to read. Nothing about my post depended on my personal preference but on creating funny stuff. Nothing about this website depends on how you are treated on some other website, so do not continue to argue that Mommy said it was okay so Daddy should go along or I will be pleased to ban you. See also UN:AD. Spıke 🎙️02:31 7-Jun-17

I'm sure the best thing to do in this case would be to talk about it completely deadpan. Just as if it were a Wikipedia article. MyOwnBadSelf (talk · stalk) 10:30, June 7, 2017 (UTC)

The last bit

The bit about cosmology - I don't really think it 'fits in' with the tone of the article. Not to mention the professor's name is unpronounceable and not really funny. MyOwnBadSelf (talk · stalk) 07:21, December 7, 2017 (UTC)