Dancinbutterfly on every platform but "real life"

I truly think the reason Armand is being presented the way that he has this season is because:

It's largely from Lestat's POV, so he doesn't know what Armand's been up to in the present day and assumes it's either pitiful yearning or something sinister.

Everybody projects this season, and 19th century Lestat projected his need for a loving parent hard onto the cultured and informed vampire adult who entered his life after Gabriella disappeared.

Show Lestat does not know nearly as much about Marius as his book counterpart (he thinks Marius is dead!), so he takes everything at face value and doesn't doubt Marius's opinion that Armand was a failure.

He doesn't want to admit to himself that his mother is hurting him, so he doesn't want to believe Armand, the one remaining character who has learned from personal experience how to recognize parental abuse when he sees it. Of course he's angry at Armand and says things like he'd do more harm than the Queen ever did! If Armand points out that Gabriella is doing to Lestat what Marius did to him, it would shatter the delusion that Lestat has clung to all this time.

Armand will be to Lestat what Daniel was to Louis in s1 and s2, a needling reminder of uncomfortable truths.

That's why Armand has not heard about "Sofia" yet, because the second he finds out that Gabriella is near, he's throwing his self-searching journey to the curb, and it's going to feel like the old Coven master is back at trying to control everyone's lives again.

In the cast and crew interviews last year and earlier this year, multiple writers and actors said they had a newfound empathy for Armand this season. Assad has stressed in interviews that Armand is trying to be good. To the casual viewer, these comments would seem to come from left field, so we can assume something in this season is going to reveal more about him than simply The Gremlin or The Failure.

Rolin has said repeatedly that episode 7 has a big plot for Armand. It's such a secret plot, the early screeners have not seen the episode and have not been able to talk about it, which leads me to believe he's involved in a big reveal that recontextualizes all the previous episodes.

Many such cases.

You powered through because you were so certain it'd be worth selling your soul if you won, all because you got that psychological high from your white grievance politics. And now it's pretty obvious that, barring divine intervention, you're going to lose it all.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside the still waters.

I can’t speak to like COS but for someone like me?Our hands are tied. Tightly.

The very things designed to protect kids from social worker ms and therapists prevent us from helping.

We can’t form dual relationships without risking our licenses and livelihood. We can’t give gifts over a small value amount without risking crosses professional and ethical lines because that’s how people get manipulated and groomed in both directions. We can’t break confidentiality and in private practice the legal client is the parent.

It goes on and on.

The general gist of the versions of the story that I've heard (from how I've always heard it told at least, mostly back when I was in Sunday School) was that when Jesus went to the temple during Passover there were a bunch of people who had turned it into a marketplace where they were selling livestock, and that they were turning a location meant for worship into some kind of marketplace. Also that the money lenders were taking advantage of people while doing the exchanges, and it was generally really scummy business being done.

The message they always seemed to apply to it was "Jesus doesn't like when people try to turn houses of worship into markets, and he really doesn't like scammers and con artists. Don't sell things in church, and especially don't use it as a place to con people."

So.

The money changers are at the Temple because Ancient Judaism wasn’t like Judaism today where each synagogue is self contained. It was a temple religion. Ancient Judaism was a temple religion Hinduism and Buddhism is where sacrifices are made. For Temple Judaism with the Holy of Holies, be the time Rome colonized Judea, Jews made grain and animal sacrifices a monotheistic G-d.

Before the Romans sacked the Temple and stole our treasure (you can see a depiction of the theft on the Arc of Titus next to the Coliseum), the BeitHaKadosh, aka THE Temple in Jerusalem was the place in Temple Judaism that people came to to make pilgrimage to G-d. Just G-d. He is only there. Temple Judaism was centralized.

Come to the Temple. Spend the shekels you can afford get the portion of the right kind of goat and grain. Make the sacrifice.

Very organized.

So why are money changers at the Temple?

Well Jews live all over the world. That was true then as it’s true now.

We have for example fragments from hundreds of years before the Christian bible was written of a letter written from a Jew in Egypt to a relative in…I think it was Samaria??… talking about Passover preparation. (@prismatic-bell you know the one I mean )

So you’re a Jew from Egypt with Egyptian money and you need an unblemished goat to make a sacrifice unto the Lord your G-d, how are you going to get it? You found a good goat but the merchant only wants shekels.

The money changers do a service. If they are Jews and they do it at a fair rate? They they did it within the Commanments of G-d and enabled other Jews to serve G-d.

Jesus is an uneducated carpenter reacted like angry teenager who read a blurb about what divinity could be but who doesn’t understand that all of these things - the marketplace the livestock the money changers - can and do exist to serve G-d as it functioned in Temple Judaism.

Jesus’s response is Roman. He just reacted decided to destroy the Jewish way.

I don’t bother to entertain the “was Jesus real” question. The writer decided to write a story that distains and destroys the entire functioning of Temple Judaism.

I suspect this is in the same vein. Most people are not hanging out with Temple-era Jews and have no reason to have learned this, and Christianity itself has this weird duality where the "old testament" might be allegorical, but because the "New Testament" takes place in Roman times where record-keeping became so much better, clearly it's actually accurate and this stuff was actually said and done.

First for you - I wrote my response to you in good faith at the end of my day. If anything came across tone wise, I was going for conversational not confrontational. But I also wrote it on my phone lying flat on my bed before I fell a sleep and I hate Rome so if anything came across as aggressive to you, that was unintentional. - please do know that the conversation door is open.

Ok. 👍 That was impotant to me because @prismatic-bell i know exactly the. Article you mention and you’re correct.

My first post is does in fact, have uh, let’s go with a tone.

And I hear all of what you are saying. I agree they’re not intentionally being antisemitic. But perpetuation of an antisemitic narrative.

But I don’t care.

Perpetuating the belief that Jews are good with money or that Jews make good doctors and lawyers isn’t done with malice either. It’s still antisemitic.

I didn’t know about the truth about the roll money changers played in Jerusalem and the Temple until I was grown either. I remember being devastated when I found out.

Everything I find out about Temple worship feels like a bleeding wound the just doesn’t heal for me.

(More under the cut but its full of transmasc kohanim feelings iykyk)

The general gist of the versions of the story that I've heard (from how I've always heard it told at least, mostly back when I was in Sunday School) was that when Jesus went to the temple during Passover there were a bunch of people who had turned it into a marketplace where they were selling livestock, and that they were turning a location meant for worship into some kind of marketplace. Also that the money lenders were taking advantage of people while doing the exchanges, and it was generally really scummy business being done.

The message they always seemed to apply to it was "Jesus doesn't like when people try to turn houses of worship into markets, and he really doesn't like scammers and con artists. Don't sell things in church, and especially don't use it as a place to con people."

So.

The money changers are at the Temple because Ancient Judaism wasn’t like Judaism today where each synagogue is self contained. It was a temple religion. Ancient Judaism was a temple religion Hinduism and Buddhism is where sacrifices are made. For Temple Judaism with the Holy of Holies, be the time Rome colonized Judea, Jews made grain and animal sacrifices a monotheistic G-d.

Before the Romans sacked the Temple and stole our treasure (you can see a depiction of the theft on the Arc of Titus next to the Coliseum), the BeitHaKadosh, aka THE Temple in Jerusalem was the place in Temple Judaism that people came to to make pilgrimage to G-d. Just G-d. He is only there. Temple Judaism was centralized.

Come to the Temple. Spend the shekels you can afford get the portion of the right kind of goat and grain. Make the sacrifice.

Very organized.

So why are money changers at the Temple?

Well Jews live all over the world. That was true then as it’s true now.

We have for example fragments from hundreds of years before the Christian bible was written of a letter written from a Jew in Egypt to a relative in…I think it was Samaria??… talking about Passover preparation. (@prismatic-bell you know the one I mean )

So you’re a Jew from Egypt with Egyptian money and you need an unblemished goat to make a sacrifice unto the Lord your G-d, how are you going to get it? You found a good goat but the merchant only wants shekels.

The money changers do a service. If they are Jews and they do it at a fair rate? They they did it within the Commanments of G-d and enabled other Jews to serve G-d.

Jesus is an uneducated carpenter reacted like angry teenager who read a blurb about what divinity could be but who doesn’t understand that all of these things - the marketplace the livestock the money changers - can and do exist to serve G-d as it functioned in Temple Judaism.

Jesus’s response is Roman. He just reacted decided to destroy the Jewish way.

I don’t bother to entertain the “was Jesus real” question. The writer decided to write a story that distains and destroys the entire functioning of Temple Judaism.

With.

With insurance.

Fuck him forever.

DSA Mamdani misplaced 50 million dollars of 65 million dollars he promised to trans public healthcare for DSA healthcare and has not hired a single Black deputy mayor despite his oh-so-progressive politics.

The DSA candidate in Texas wants to put people who committed the of saying Israel should exists in ICE camps.

Normie Democrat Kamala Harris was the Attorney General when Gay Marriage happened. Normie Democrat Chuck Schumer got protection of gay marriage enshrined in federal law in congress. Normie Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Amy Porter have been taking on the banks.

Normie Democrat Joe Biden got the Violence Against Women Act and Victims of Violent Crimes Act through congress in the 70s and made sure it was renewed during his tenure as president that made sure that violence against women was actually treated as a serious crime and saw that victims of violent crime could seek restitution and support not just from their offenders but from the state and federal government.

and there's more. There's so many more and most of them are from normie corporate Democrats. Corporate Democrat Jon Ossoff got RID OF THE REMAING LEAD PIPES! THE RIGHT TO NOT HAVE LEAD IN YOUR WATER!

What right are they preventing you from having?

Seriously?

PREVENTING YOU?!

What right are the Corporate Dems prevent you from accessing?

Because from where I sit? It's the right to attack Jews in public. Because really is the one unifying thing DSA people do. There's a side of just...real racial sketchiness and antitransness and other things. But...ya know, the right to express antisemitism

And if it's that? Fuck you.

If you want to vote for the DSA so you can attack Jews, even antizionist Jews on the street, and put Zionists in camps, and vote for Nazis with Nazi tattoos?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this tag lately, which encompasses so much context in three little words.

You’re exactly right @magicmumu2. I’ve been fascinated in the way that desirable femininity has been portrayed in old Hollywood and how it was systemically withheld from fat black women. Despite emancipation being several decades before the 1930s, women that looked like me were erased of everything except our servitude. The closest it gets would be Lena Horne or Mae West but they’re both only checking half the box and in the lightest way (litcherally), at that. 80-90 years ago, I would only get to depict a maid, if the film wanted financial backing and wider distribution, at least. On occasion today, fat black women are portrayed as classic, glamorous beauties.