Talk:Freudian slip

From VFH

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Freudian slip. This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about the article's subject. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

• Penis, I mean, against. The problem is it's filled with sexual innuendos, not Freudian slips.InfiniteMonkey 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Limp... I mean Weak... Against The Sexual Innuendo kills it. I do like the true Slips... "A Freudian slip lurking in the closet. Er, wardrobe."... But the blatant stuff like "...Europeans were hungry for any kind of novelty opening, and Kennedy's unguarded ejaculation provided just the excuse..." kind of ruined it for me. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong for. Freudian slip=sexual innuendo (or outuendo). I'm just sayin' . . .--Procopius 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

comment Since when? A Freudian Slip is when you say something when you want to say something else. Innuendo is deliberate and has a completely different structure. --monika 00:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

comment Exactly. Sexual innuendos involve correct word choices that hint at something else. Freudian slips involve incorrect usage of words. Think of Chevy Chase looking at the buxom lingerie saleswoman and saying "it is a bit nipply out." Or when Cliff Clavin explains a Freudian slip as, "That's when you say one thing when you're actually thinking about a mother." Also, it doesn't have to be sexual. When Bush says "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we", that could be a Freudian slip. I'd be all for this article if it were rewritten to be full of Freudian slips rather than penis. I mean, innuendo. InfiniteMonkey 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Ah, you kids with your iPods and your Psychopathology of Everyday Life. I concede the point. Still, a damn funny article.--Procopius 04:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If I might interject - a Freudian slip occurs when there is a disjunction between what a speaker says and what he means, in such a way that the disjunction reveals something about his subconscious mind. It need not be explicitly sexual, but it is certainly related to sex, the mother complex, dream symbolism, etc....

In this article, I am extending that to what a writer writes and what is revealed about the unconscious mind in general. The writer sets out to write an article on a Freudian slip, in a kind of stereotypical masculine way - the authority of the encylcopedian - but the article continually reveals other things about the subconscious, designed to upset standard notions of masculine authority.

Every single sentence and phrase in the article therefore has two meanings, one straight and authoritative one and another subtext. Even Kennedy's "unguarded ejaculation" can mean either something sexual, or simply his own error of speach - which is exactly what a Freudian slip is itself, an "unguarded ejaculation". So, if you see all of this as "merely" innuendo, I think that reveals something about your own psyche, no? It is all Freudian, I assure you. Now lay down and tell me your dreams...

Jokes and the unconscious...? No?

Ah well, I tried... Back to writing simple articles about sausages and bananas, I suppose... --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 10:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• For more vermin being fired out of a cannon. ~ T. (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

From Pee Review

If anyone would care to fondle this and then spurt a reaction, it would make a happy man very old. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 06:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a once-over. Not my breast best work, but it's OK. Delete what you dislike. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good. It sort of wanders between the Demographics section and the Pope testimonial, though. If you can get more, uh, slips in there, it would be midriff good.--Procopius 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, how I am quietly damned by the "Pretty"... Well, I tried again, with more slips in. ENeGMA, I took the core ideas from what you did and tried to rewrite using Procopius' suggestions. I might have erred to much on the side of subtlety before - but now it is more overt while still quietly strange. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes -- now a good article has taken on a terrific Hardwick form.--Procopius 16:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)