The Other Cheek
Cidu Bill on Oct 26th 2009
A bonus lol, shunted over to the Arlo Page for language considerations
Filed in Arlo Page, Arlol, Bill Bickel, Jesus Christ, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, Zach Weiner, comic strips, comics, comics that made us laugh out loud, humor, lol | 24 responses so far
Keera Oct 26th 2009 at 01:48 pm 1
Man, does a lot get lost in translation. Turning the other cheek was never about being a wimp or passive-aggressiveness. It was about not escalating a bad situation.
Even if I ignore my knowledge of Biblical stuff, I don’t get what is funny about this cartoon. Truly a CIDU for me. Of course, the close proximity of “cheek” and “dick” are definitely Arlo, IMO.
Nicole Oct 26th 2009 at 02:28 pm 2
As far as I am concerned every SMBC that pokes at religion belongs on the LOL page
Bob in Nashville Oct 26th 2009 at 04:20 pm 3
Depends on the neighbors.
mkilby Oct 26th 2009 at 05:09 pm 4
Thank God he said “turn”, and not “spread”.
src666 Oct 26th 2009 at 06:35 pm 5
I would have subtitled it “oft-misunderstood” instead, but otherwise well done.
Chuck Oct 26th 2009 at 09:58 pm 6
Nicole, I’m Christian myself but I agree. Some of Zach’s best are his God and Christ strips.
furrykef Oct 26th 2009 at 10:09 pm 7
I’m a punctuation nazi, so I’ll point out that “passive aggression” should not have a hyphen. It’s just an adjective modifying a noun. You wouldn’t say “blue-coat” instead of “blue coat”, right? You only add the hyphen when the phrase modifies a noun: “passive-aggressive tendencies”, “a blue-coated figure”.
Even if I ignore my knowledge of Biblical stuff, I don’t get what is funny about this cartoon.
It’s funny because the idea that Jesus would teach such a thing is absurd. It’s an incongruous image.
- Kef
furrykef Oct 26th 2009 at 10:10 pm 8
Rats. My comment got in the moderation queue again. I suspect the mention of a certain group of Germans that existed in the 30s and 40s was what did the trick…
Cidu Bill Oct 26th 2009 at 10:19 pm 9
Furrykef, you didn’t end up in the moderation queue per se: In order to hold up the Frazz responses, I had to temporarily set everything to “moderation.”
Paperboy Oct 27th 2009 at 12:34 am 10
furrykef, you keep on quoting grammar regulations. Getting it right doesn’t make you a Nazi.
The Bad Seed Oct 27th 2009 at 08:11 am 11
As a proud passive aggressive from a long line if them, I find this hilarious. I’ve definitely been known to do the right thing only because it would make someone else feel/look bad.
John Small Berries Oct 27th 2009 at 10:24 am 12
I, for one, feel there is nothing hyperbolic about equating linguistic pedantry with a political party which made the slaughter of millions of human beings a matter of institutional policy.
It is a quite reasonable comparison.
TasmanSea Oct 27th 2009 at 11:47 am 13
This was funny to me, because it’s kind of funny to see aggressive vs passive-aggressive stand offs IRL. If someone is being insulting, and the passive aggressive person totally refuses to engage in the idea that something mean or critical is being said to them at all… then it can lead to the other person feeling somewhat dickish I think.
And yes, less funny for the excessive hyphen.
Prosfilaes Oct 27th 2009 at 03:21 pm 14
I think part of what makes it funny is it turns a commandment of Jesus that few can figure out how to apply in real life into something that’s practical, if un-Jesus-like. There’s this old movie where a priest tells a kid to turn the other cheek to a bully; at which point the bully punches him in the other cheek, too. So then the priest puts the kid in boxing classes. Personally, that matches my experience; often, those who shove only respect someone who shove back.
Autumnal Harvest Oct 28th 2009 at 12:15 am 15
This is actually a perfectly valid theological reading of the gospels. Arguably, the point of turning the other cheek isn’t to let horrible people do whatever they want, but to set an example that shames and changes the horrible people and the world. I don’t claim that this is what the historical Jesus meant, but many people do claim that’s what he meant. Which is why this comic isn’t particularly funny.
furrykef Oct 28th 2009 at 12:54 am 16
I, for one, feel there is nothing hyperbolic about equating linguistic pedantry with a political party which made the slaughter of millions of human beings a matter of institutional policy.
It is a quite reasonable comparison.
Nobody ever said that it isn’t hyperbolic. But “X nazi” (where X is anything, but especially “spelling” or “grammar”) is pretty standard terminology these days, especially on the internet.
- Kef
mkilby Oct 28th 2009 at 08:31 am 17
@ Furrykef - I’ve used and heard the phrase on occasions, but only in the US. Here in Germany, the word Nazi is so overloaded with emotion that it is simply off the scale as an intensifier (even when speaking in English). It could even result in a libel lawsuit (for public utterances, especially when gets into the media).
There’s an odd irony to this, when you compare it to the “F-word” that is so feared by American Censorship Nazis: it doesn’t happen often, but nobody in Germany gets hot and bothered when a comedian says F**K! on television, and the uproar over Janet Jackson’s nipplegate was met here with tired disbelief of the silly American prudes.
Elyrest Oct 28th 2009 at 12:37 pm 18
“the uproar over Janet Jackson’s nipplegate was met here with tired disbelief of the silly American prudes”
mkilby - it was met that way here too.
paperboy Oct 28th 2009 at 01:50 pm 19
mkilby , Elyrest - The Janet Jackson incident cannot be tagged with the “gate” suffix, because that requires there to be a “cover-up”.
mkilby Oct 28th 2009 at 04:42 pm 20
I stand by “nipplegate” - The fun thing about watching the aftermath on German TV was that they actually ran the tape, and it wasn’t censored either. There was no “cover up” after the fact, but there certainly WAS a coverup when it happened, and boy was it FAST. However, the most depressing thing about the whole episode was reading about the FCC’s justification of a half-million dollar fine for this “oh-so-heinous crime” of displaying a tit on TV.
paperboy Oct 28th 2009 at 06:55 pm 21
And I stand by my lexicon proclamation. There HAS to be a cover-up and denial to be dubbed with the “gate” suffix. Look up the Watergate Hotel scandal. Otherwise use the terms “affair”, “scandal”, “trouble” , “Brew-ha-ha”, “fuss”, “ado” etc.
S.P. Charles Oct 29th 2009 at 02:10 pm 22
I thought the very point of the Janet Jackson business was that it was the opposite of a cover-up.
paperboy Oct 29th 2009 at 05:08 pm 23
My point eggs-freakin’-aktly.
Christine Nov 3rd 2009 at 11:23 am 24
I’m with Autumnal Harvest. I’ve heard this one interpreted also as it changes the slap from being front of the hand to back of the hand, which is more of a caress.
Just like carrying the pack of a Roman soldier for two miles instead of one could get said soldier in a lot of trouble (they had limits on how much work they could make the locals do).