Back in mid-June, Chak submitted one of Zach Weinersmith’s SMBC comics as a partial CIDU, commenting: “I could only find eight broken Commandments, can anybody get all ten? And if so, which of the three lists of Commandments in the Bible did they use?“
(Ordinarily the comic would appear right here, but not this time.)
Here’s why: Besides the theological irreverence present in Zach’s caption, the main problem (and part of the reason for the delay in posting Chak’s submission) is that while there is nothing visually offensive (nor “Arlo”) in the artwork, the dialog is simply much too crude to post openly at CIDU (some might even call it blasphemous). I’m not willing to risk one of those fancy “swipe” frames to hide it, because that mechanism is browser-dependent.
Since we do not have access to Bill’s “Arlo Page” to use as an asylum for this kind of material, the experiment I propose is to provide non-embedded (text) links, which may be used to open the corresponding images in a separate browser tab or window. Everyone should remember that the images behind these links should not, repeat not be opened by anyone who is easily offended (in this case, by F-bombs and other gratuitous crudeness).
Here is the link to the SMBC comic (NSFW).
Reminder: you have been warned!
This second link is for the bonus “votey” panel (also NSFW).
Again: you have been warned!
Anyone who wishes to answer Chak’s questions or participate in the discussion may do so in the comments below, but please remember, even though Zach used crude language in his comic, there are still standards of decorum here at CIDU, so please keep everything civil. I wouldn’t expect that this conversation will qualify for a G-Rating, but it would be nice if we could keep it below PG-13.
P.S. If this discussion method works, we might consider using it with other (especially “Arlo”) comics that would otherwise not qualify to be posted at CIDU.
P.P.S. Those of you who may feel that this experiment was a bad idea, please say so. CIDU is a community; it cannot function properly without honest, open communication. (I’m referring here to the method of discussing NSFW material, and not the SMBC comic itself, which is sure to offend a certain percentage of readers.)
Comics I Don't Understand 
In order of words in the comic
Dave got all 10 of the commandments listed in Exodus 20/Deut 5:
Lie He told me he wasn’t up to anything… but the truth is…
Sabbath day … this Sabbath…
Kill … he was murdering…
Honor parents …his parents…
Steal …Then using a stolen…
Graven images …idol that…
No other gods …he worships…
Adultery … as a sex toy to cheat on his wife…
Covet … with his neighbor’s sexier wife…
Name in vain … while shouting “Goddamn!”
As far as I can tell Dave only broke 2 of the ten listed in Ex. 34… (idols & Sabbath)… unless the Sabbath he was skipping out on also happened to be during the Feast of Unleavened Bread and/or the Feast of Weeks…? …but that still only hits 4…?
Stretching the concept to breaking, it’s theoretically possible to argue that using just the two “great commandments” in Matthew 22:36-40 (love thy god, love thy neighbor), Dave managed to keep both of those… if-and-only-if Dave is doing all this as a way of worshiping/loving that idol god that he stole … and we only count his neighbor’s wife as the subject of his neighborly love (…unless his own wife and his neighbor are all part of a consenting polycule…?).
And while we’re being blasphemous, I asked ChatGPT to come up with an updated/modern set of 10 commandments:
Embrace Diversity: Celebrate and respect all cultures, beliefs, and identities.
Protect the Environment: Take actions to reduce your ecological footprint and preserve the Earth.
Promote Equality: Stand up against discrimination and strive for fairness and justice for all.
Practice Kindness: Treat others with compassion, empathy, and understanding.
Pursue Knowledge: Continuously seek to learn and educate yourself and others.
Uphold Honesty: Be truthful in your words and actions.
Foster Community: Engage with and support your local and global communities.
Advocate for Peace: Resolve conflicts peacefully and encourage harmonious living.
Nurture Health: Prioritize physical, mental, and emotional well-being for yourself and others.
Cherish Creativity: Encourage and express creativity in all its forms.
EC: I’ll take the original 10, thanks!
As long as the cartoons aren’t visible on the front page, I’m fine with this method.
Shrug. I wouldn’t have had any problem with you posting the originals as-is. (Or is that “as-are”?) . The only thing that might be “rude” or “crude” was one instance of the f-word. (“Sodomy” appears just as that formal term.)
On the technical side, these links go to where CIDU is holding the images, so maybe the hand-washing is not as thorough as some finger-wagglers might ask for. BTW, if the suggestion is that the links “may be used to open the corresponding images in a separate browser tab or window” you can as you may know make that built-in to the link.
As another option, while you are rejecting ” one of those fancy “swipe” frames to hide it, because that mechanism is browser-dependent” , there is a different WordPress tool that might work well, and that’s the “Details” Block. Help file at https://wordpress.com/support/wordpress-editor/blocks/details-block/ It’s still rather “fancy” but not a slider, and unlike the comparison slider it was designed for this very purpose. “The Details block is a block that allows you to include content hidden under a parent block with a text summary. This works like an accordion, with the text summary expanding to show nested content.”
Pete and the others have done a very good job of outlining the commandments and their alignment with the comic. Regarding this format, seems fine to me! I think it is reasonable to link rather than show, since some people do prefer a PG-rated experience.
FWIW as a scholar of ancient Hebrew literature and a person of faith, I find such comics deeply amusing. Zach and others like him (e.g., David Willis) often so a far deeper awareness of the Bible and its traditions than most faithful Jews and Christians. YMMV
@El Cucui, this is an interesting exercise, but I think I would disagree.
Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 in Matthew 22:37, a verse where YHWH is mentioned specifically by proper name. Worshipping the stolen idol through these actions would not qualify as keeping that commandment because the commandment is specific about the God to be loved. The second commandment, in Matthew 22:39 (where Jesus is quoting Leviticus 19:18), would seem to allow for open interpretation in regards to the neighbor’s wife, the neighbor, and Dave’s own wife, but it is hard to view the stealing and murdering as loving acts or things done to those who would not qualify as neighbors.
Still, it’s an interesting exercise in examining the Bible, just as this SMBC comic is.
Pete @1 got ’em all! I only got to 8. Also challenging is that the 10 commandments aren’t exactly the same in every flavor of Christianity or even in the same order.
As for this kind of comic being posted at all, I have no issues with it. We should consider resurrecting the Arlo page if other solutions aren’t viable.
i’m atheist, so i would have been fine with these on the front page, but i understand the reticence… bring us more!
>I understand the reticence
*reluctance. That word does not mean what you think it means. (Yes, I’m being pedantic on a Monday–this is a pet peeve.)
Mark H,
Which original ten?
“While some find the “reluctant” sense inelegant, it has been in widespread use for a number of decades.”
How long must a word must be misused before that becomes an accepted definition?
TedD: Sure, language evolves. In this case, I don’t think it’s there yet.
My dad was a linguist, so we had lots of discussions about descriptive vs. prescriptive. Keeping up the good fight is worthwhile, especially when it just reduces communication, as in this case–taking a specific word and blurring it with a similar word just makes it harder to be precise.
I much prefer the ChatGPT 10 — so much more human. Thanks El Cucui!
And I have no problem with the comic on the front page, but this works, too. Whatever.
phsiii – You are literally trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. :)
We’ve clearly both been involved in these discussions previously. There is nothing new here. My question is how long and how many dictionaries need to define the word with current usage before you’ll accept it?
TedD – “A reasonable [if undefined] number.”
The point is, “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”. Until, eventually, maybe it does.
“Nice” no longer means “stupid”, but “reticent” still means what it means. For now.
I commend to your attention Cecil B. DeMille’s “Ten Commandments” — the silent version (included as an extra on the two-disc DVD). Only the first part dramatizes the story of Moses. The rest, set in modern times (1920s), is about two brothers in love with the same girl — and each commandment is broken, mostly by the immoral brother. It starts small, like dancing to a record on Sunday or not listening to Mom. Then you get the bad brother taking a mistress, and she having a big pagan idol in her apartment, and fraudulent business dealings … all building to melodramatic retribution and repentance.
Also, there was a one-panel gag of Moses reading the commandments to a crowd, following each one with something like: “Are you getting this, Murray? … Looking at you, Murray …Yeah, Murray, it’s right here … You may want to take notes, Murray … “
phsiii – absolutely. And one of those meanings, currently, is reluctant. Let me know if you find a credible source that says otherwise.
Chak – the set that keeps graven images as a separate commandment, and combines all the coveting stuff into one commandment.
@bensondonald: Makes one wonder if Cecil’s brother’s name may have been Murray…?
Merriam-Webster online definition:
reticence noun
ret·i·cence ˈre-tə-sən(t)s
Synonyms of reticence
1 : the quality or state of being reticent : reserve, restraint
2 : an instance of being reticent
3 : reluctance sense 1
Meh. But I must agree that the excessive rude language makes it inappropriate to post directly here.
Whether dictionaries acknowledge the common error or not is largely irrelevant. The question is: why would you use reticence to mean reluctant when reluctant is right there and less confusing?
Why would you say for instance “He was reluctant to speak” when “He was reticent” says it so well in three words?
Mark: You wouldn’t. And you wouldn’t say “She was reticent to go to the party” if you were interested in being precise and knew whut wurds meen.
(As previously stated, I’m being super-pedantic here, but “Glory” and all that…)
P.S. Brian: Most dictionaries are more descriptive than prescriptive. A recent dictionary noting that folks commonly misuse a word doesn’t mean we abandon the quest for clarity IMHO.
That’s because it’s the way English works. As usage changes, the language does, and the dictionaries reflect the changed state. Whether we like any particular change.
After all, there have been significant changes to usage for words like “awful” or “girl”. So if it’s well-supported in the dictionaries, it’s not reasonable to say that the usage is wrong.
That’s incredible!
Brian: Sure, of course. But one random dictionary — or even a few — doesn’t meet that bar. OED, for example, still makes no mention of the misuse.
American Heritage has a good discussion:
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=reticent
Anyway, y’all got my point, so I’m probably done for today :)
So how is “reticent” different from “reluctant to reveal one’s thoughts and feelings”?
It’s not different–that’s basically what it means. And…?
So why would you say for instance “He was reluctant to speak” when “He was reticent” says it so well in three words?
“Haven’t we done this?” “Oh, yes, sorry.” –Monty Python
Mark: I wouldn’t. You COULD but it would be more verbose. You asked this before; did I miss your point? I expect so!