Some Amusements

A collection of items which amuse me. Do enjoy.

[mens-rights-activia]

[mens-rights-activia]

He WHAT??? Oh 15 stabs were not enough

[mammalianmammals]

Yellow-footed Rock Wallabies (Petrogale xanthopus), family Macropodidae, South Australia

photographs by Wild Portraits Australia

[a-book-of-creatures]

The author must have been eating woodland salad, candied acorns, turnip pie, plum-cakes, bilberry tarts, arrowroot shortbread, and glazed maple shoots, and drinking flagons of October ale and raspberry cordial when they wrote this

[spicymochi]

your month, your mini cat!

[pmamtraveller]

Sunbath by Julia Zhuravleva

[jellyfishforest135]

Rest in peace Sam Neill. Thank you for the awe and wonder you brought to us.

[foone]

I'm having one of those days where I need either a bunch of money, a bunch of drugs, or a gentle massage with a baseball bat.

[necrofuturism]

[foone]

I was hoping to start at the other end of that list of options, but sure. swing away, thanks for helping

[tenaflyviper]

Sam Neill (1947–2026)

Rest in Peace, sir.

[idrawsnoopyeveryday]

hi there! would it be possible to draw snoopy and woodstock eating blueberries together? they're my favorite thing in my garden!

215.

[dionysiaproductions]

I've probably invested too much time into this lark.

[turnabout]

no you invested the right amount of time it's delightful

[spaceshipsandpurpledrank]

[anais-ninja-bitch]

unrestrained summer fun

[thegroovyarchives]

1996 Wishbone Stickers (via: eBay)

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

[merinnan]

[honourablejester]

I am deeply offended by this! I was reading thoughts on what D&D classes the characters of The Mummy (1999) would be, and there was a comment that Jonathan was obviously a rogue, but either a badly built one or one with shit dice rolls. And! Excuse you? Jonathan is a perfectly acceptable rogue! He rolls fine when he’s actually attempting to do something!

In the first movie alone, some of his greatest hits:

Successfully pickpocketed Rick on their first meeting, without Rick so much as joining the dots until later.

Survives a pitched battle on a burning ship without a scratch, and somehow gets the key from a burning hook-handed enemy mook in the process. (“And did I panic? I think not!”)

Survives a pitched battle in the Hamunaptra ruins while drunk, through liberal use of cover and picking off targets at range.

Rolls a Nat 20 on his deception check to avoid being massacred by a large group of hynotised enemies in the museum.

Survives the final pitched battle with the undead (again, through liberal use of cover, hiding and running).

Successfully makes his intelligence roll to translate the Book of Amun Ra (with the Help action from Evie).

Successfully uses the resulting control over the undead mooks to even out the battlefield, including the genius brain move of sending them after Ankh-Su-Namun to both save Evie and distract Imhotep.

Successfully pickpockets a lich while being strangled by him to regain the key and enable Evie to use the book to banish Imhotep altogether.

Yes, he’s fairly flimsy in direct battle, and if at all possible refuses to get to melee range with anybody. So he’s a ranged rogue, and has a tendency to use the environment to his advantage. But he’s clearly designed around Sleight of Hand, Charisma, and a decent sprinkling of Intelligence, and prefers to use object interactions and battlefield control to even out his odds. For all that, though, he fully will stay in melee range if he has no other choice, and take the opportunity to pickpocket the BBEG while he’s at it.

He's a perfectly serviceable rogue, he’s just not optimised for straight combat. And even there, as the second movie shows, he’s excellent at ranged combat. He just doesn’t like getting up close and personal.

[honourablejester]

Actually, going back and rewatching that final battle again ... I don't think that Jonathan stayed in range of Imhotep because he had no choice. He stayed in range specifically to pickpocket him.

I didn't realise before, but this whole battle starts with Evie telling Jonathan that the only way to kill Imhotep is to open the book and read the spell to banish him. Jonathan says it's locked, they need the key, and Evie then tells him it's in Imhotep's robes.

When Jonathan sends the priest mummies after Ankh-Su-Namun with the spell on the cover (saving both Rick and Evie in the process), Imhotep is coming right for him. However, Imhotep is then briefly disabled by watching the brutal murder of his lover all over again, and Jonathan ... could have run. There's a beat there where Imhotep is completely focused on something else, and Jonathan absolutely has the presence of mind to use that, but he doesn't. Imhotep, now incensed that Jonathan has murdered his lover, promptly spins back around and goes to murder him back, and is only stopped because Rick returns the favour from earlier and saves him.

At which point a lightly-strangled Jonathan stands back up and tells Evie he got the key.

He fucking stayed put on purpose because he knew they needed the key, that Imhotep had the key, and that he was the only person who could fucking pickpocket the BBEG mid-strangulation and get away with it, so long as someone could swoop in before the undead wizard actually killed him. Imhotep is immortal and immune to damage if they don't do something about that. This is a fight of attrition they cannot win. And his sister told him what they needed to stop it, so Jonathan went and got it.

He cheerfully calls himself a coward, and then he goes and fatally pisses off a lich as a distraction, and then stands still to be murdered for it in order to get close enough to pickpocket the immortal pissed off undead. It wasn't that he took the opportunity while being strangled, he set up being strangled in order to have the opportunity.

Say whatever the hell you like about that man, but he has never once failed to do something his family actually needed him to do.

[tenleaguesbeneath]

Given the movie's release date, it's not that he's a 5e rogue but not one optimized for melee combat, he's a 2nd-edition thief.

[tiptapismellbullcrap]

Every time someone says Samira was born to work in the Pitt or any other variation of that sentence, i kinda get annoyed and frustrated, because, to me, the point that is made over and over again is that no one is made for this job.

We see it especially in Dana and Robby who have been there for years now, but Samira has been showing signs of burnout since season 1. We know she doesn’t have much of a life outside of work, and that is taking a massive fucking toll on her. There is no work/life balance, there isnt with any of them, but we see it most clearly in her and that is taking its toll.

The point of the show is that this is a cruel and thankless job, but they still do it, and change needs to be made to better support these workers.

And saying that any one character was made or born to do this feels contradictory to the message and ignores the story being told. In season one, Dana, who’s life has been so connected to PTMC, nearly quits, nearly leaves what she has been doing her whole life, because it’s too much and she doesn’t know if she can take the abuse again, because it will always happen again. There is only so much these people can handle before they reach their breaking point, and we saw Samira getting closer and closer to that breaking point throughout season 2.

I wouldn’t be surprised if an explanation of Samira’s absence is something to do with burnout, because she is the type (as we saw in season one) to work until she breaks. And with Al-Hashimi in charge, maybe she was pushed to take a break. I dont know, and we wont know until it’s released.

Being in healthcare is a job that kills, we see that in both the show and real life. Saying someone was born to do this feels naive and ignorant to the toll it takes on a person, because if someone was born for this, why is it killing them?

[alexisneverokay]

whenever someone says that the writers made robby have underlying sexist bias "by accident" and "because the writers themselves have that bias", i want to scream. none of robby's character has happened by accident. he's been deliberately given a realistic bias by the writers in the same way mckay, ogilvie, javadi, whitaker etc all have. they're writing realistic characters to show that even the best of us can have these biases and ought to confront them.

every one of these biases is directly referenced in the plot. they are NOT by accident. at all. mckay is called out for her weight bias, ogilvie for his bias against addicts, dennis for his dismissal of female pain. all deliberately written in. LIKEWISE is robby's bias. in season one, it's a main plotline that ends in him apologising to mckay and saying that he should have listened to her when she told him that these girls were in danger. he admits he was wrong. this is written in the script on purpose with the same aim as the rest of the biases- addressing them head on. main plotlines are not accidental bias in the writers room.

im not saying the writers themselves have no biases- they're human like us and we all have them- but I'm saying that every part of robby as a character (yes, even subtle parts you think you're a genius for picking up on) has been written *meticulously*. this is no accident, it is careful scriptwriting.

this form of incorrect critique (because unfortunately it is completely incorrect to claim his misogyny is accidental) also does the job of erasing the fact that, of the nine writers, five are women, and four of those are women of colour. in fact, some of the episodes people hate robby the most in for his bias are ones written by woc. I *promise* you that they know what they're writing.

overall I find statements that ignore the canonical reality in that robby's bias is directly addressed in the show, in favour of calling the writers misogynist, is very disrespectful to the time, skill and nuance that they have poured into these characters- recognise their work at creating someone realistic.

you can analyse the characters and critique the writers absolutely! but make sure you know the content of the show you're analysing, and the nature and detail in which scripts are written- especially ones that sweep awards seasons.