Ms Ruby Scarlet ♾️♿✒️🎨🦄☘️🍉
@msrubyscarlet.bsky.social
Polycrip: AuDHD SPMS, INTP, Ace, Feminist, "Hard Left"ist, wide awoke, Author, Artist and part-time Libertine. Views my own, but everyone is entitled to my opinion 💋
I disagree. People who think Farage is the answer should plug their toaster into the bathroom shaver socket. Then run themselves a nice hot bath, get in, and give the toaster a really good soak and clean.
November 22, 2025 at 9:33 PM
I disagree. People who think Farage is the answer should plug their toaster into the bathroom shaver socket. Then run themselves a nice hot bath, get in, and give the toaster a really good soak and clean.
OR Mamdani is a plant and gave Trump the secret 'handshake' so he'd know the AntiChrist had arrived and he'd done his duty.
MAGA runs very deep, some say it goes all the way back to Salem.
Mary Sibley wore a red hat with arcane symbols embroidered on it, you know...
Do THE RESEARCH LIBS!!!
MAGA runs very deep, some say it goes all the way back to Salem.
Mary Sibley wore a red hat with arcane symbols embroidered on it, you know...
Do THE RESEARCH LIBS!!!
November 22, 2025 at 2:34 AM
OR Mamdani is a plant and gave Trump the secret 'handshake' so he'd know the AntiChrist had arrived and he'd done his duty.
MAGA runs very deep, some say it goes all the way back to Salem.
Mary Sibley wore a red hat with arcane symbols embroidered on it, you know...
Do THE RESEARCH LIBS!!!
MAGA runs very deep, some say it goes all the way back to Salem.
Mary Sibley wore a red hat with arcane symbols embroidered on it, you know...
Do THE RESEARCH LIBS!!!
Now we know how to control Trump. He takes on the views of the last person who talked with him.
Keep him away from MAGA and he should make a full recovery.
Keep him away from MAGA and he should make a full recovery.
November 22, 2025 at 2:22 AM
Now we know how to control Trump. He takes on the views of the last person who talked with him.
Keep him away from MAGA and he should make a full recovery.
Keep him away from MAGA and he should make a full recovery.
I don't see you making much of an effort, so presume you've lost interest now the misogyny and slurs haven't worked and your 'evidence' has been shown to be nothing like?
Shall we just take it as your surrender and move on?
Have a nice day in Torygraph-reading Labour land. Mauve Tories FTW.
Shall we just take it as your surrender and move on?
Have a nice day in Torygraph-reading Labour land. Mauve Tories FTW.
November 22, 2025 at 2:20 AM
I don't see you making much of an effort, so presume you've lost interest now the misogyny and slurs haven't worked and your 'evidence' has been shown to be nothing like?
Shall we just take it as your surrender and move on?
Have a nice day in Torygraph-reading Labour land. Mauve Tories FTW.
Shall we just take it as your surrender and move on?
Have a nice day in Torygraph-reading Labour land. Mauve Tories FTW.
You can see the thread, that's what he chose to run with.
November 22, 2025 at 2:16 AM
You can see the thread, that's what he chose to run with.
Furthermore, the improvement we're actually seeing in these stats is a death rate of 0.118 per 1000 falling to 0.1 per 1000.
As I said earlier, a miniscule change affecting very very few kids, which it would be near impossible to hang a statement like 'kids are safer' on as the primary evidence.
As I said earlier, a miniscule change affecting very very few kids, which it would be near impossible to hang a statement like 'kids are safer' on as the primary evidence.
November 21, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Furthermore, the improvement we're actually seeing in these stats is a death rate of 0.118 per 1000 falling to 0.1 per 1000.
As I said earlier, a miniscule change affecting very very few kids, which it would be near impossible to hang a statement like 'kids are safer' on as the primary evidence.
As I said earlier, a miniscule change affecting very very few kids, which it would be near impossible to hang a statement like 'kids are safer' on as the primary evidence.
This is data about medical mortality (cancer being the biggest killer) so doesn't really support your claim of kids being 'safer'.
It also covers a period between 2000 and 2020, which is not directly helpful to establish the difference between 1975 and today.
It also covers a period between 2000 and 2020, which is not directly helpful to establish the difference between 1975 and today.
November 21, 2025 at 10:32 PM
This is data about medical mortality (cancer being the biggest killer) so doesn't really support your claim of kids being 'safer'.
It also covers a period between 2000 and 2020, which is not directly helpful to establish the difference between 1975 and today.
It also covers a period between 2000 and 2020, which is not directly helpful to establish the difference between 1975 and today.
His screenshots are from the Torygraph, hence he doesn't actually know what the statistics are or where to access them.
He's just parroting what he's read in the right wing press. Which when he is using it to accuse ME of being a Faragist is both hysterical and ironic.
He's just parroting what he's read in the right wing press. Which when he is using it to accuse ME of being a Faragist is both hysterical and ironic.
November 21, 2025 at 9:54 PM
His screenshots are from the Torygraph, hence he doesn't actually know what the statistics are or where to access them.
He's just parroting what he's read in the right wing press. Which when he is using it to accuse ME of being a Faragist is both hysterical and ironic.
He's just parroting what he's read in the right wing press. Which when he is using it to accuse ME of being a Faragist is both hysterical and ironic.
You really ARE a complete moron aren't you?
I guess someone who follows 'news' sources that 'support the Labour Party' and also thinks the Torygraph is a source of 'proof' of anything would be.
Mind you, Labour and the Torygraph are basically the same side now. Rory Stewart fan are you?
I guess someone who follows 'news' sources that 'support the Labour Party' and also thinks the Torygraph is a source of 'proof' of anything would be.
Mind you, Labour and the Torygraph are basically the same side now. Rory Stewart fan are you?
November 21, 2025 at 9:53 PM
You really ARE a complete moron aren't you?
I guess someone who follows 'news' sources that 'support the Labour Party' and also thinks the Torygraph is a source of 'proof' of anything would be.
Mind you, Labour and the Torygraph are basically the same side now. Rory Stewart fan are you?
I guess someone who follows 'news' sources that 'support the Labour Party' and also thinks the Torygraph is a source of 'proof' of anything would be.
Mind you, Labour and the Torygraph are basically the same side now. Rory Stewart fan are you?
No no, you were very clear that it's backed up by stats so please, show them to me.
You must know where they are, as you're so certain they exist.
Why wouldn't you want to prove it to me?
Oh, unless you just ask ChatGPT and call that proof?
You must know where they are, as you're so certain they exist.
Why wouldn't you want to prove it to me?
Oh, unless you just ask ChatGPT and call that proof?
November 21, 2025 at 9:49 PM
No no, you were very clear that it's backed up by stats so please, show them to me.
You must know where they are, as you're so certain they exist.
Why wouldn't you want to prove it to me?
Oh, unless you just ask ChatGPT and call that proof?
You must know where they are, as you're so certain they exist.
Why wouldn't you want to prove it to me?
Oh, unless you just ask ChatGPT and call that proof?
Plenty of women still die of breast cancer. You know the 'survival rate' is only a measure of who doesn't die within 5 years of diagnosis right? I had two aunts who 'survived' breast cancer and also died of it.
Your "statistics" don't mean what you think they do.
Your "statistics" don't mean what you think they do.
November 21, 2025 at 9:48 PM
Plenty of women still die of breast cancer. You know the 'survival rate' is only a measure of who doesn't die within 5 years of diagnosis right? I had two aunts who 'survived' breast cancer and also died of it.
Your "statistics" don't mean what you think they do.
Your "statistics" don't mean what you think they do.
I am getting very tired of your disgracerful ad homs.
What 'populist guff' do you think I have read? The Telegraph, like you?
How does it look like I am not fond of 'brown people'? Do you have ANY actual evidence of that?
But I now have plenty of evidence of your misogyny and bigoted hubris.
What 'populist guff' do you think I have read? The Telegraph, like you?
How does it look like I am not fond of 'brown people'? Do you have ANY actual evidence of that?
But I now have plenty of evidence of your misogyny and bigoted hubris.
November 21, 2025 at 9:46 PM
I am getting very tired of your disgracerful ad homs.
What 'populist guff' do you think I have read? The Telegraph, like you?
How does it look like I am not fond of 'brown people'? Do you have ANY actual evidence of that?
But I now have plenty of evidence of your misogyny and bigoted hubris.
What 'populist guff' do you think I have read? The Telegraph, like you?
How does it look like I am not fond of 'brown people'? Do you have ANY actual evidence of that?
But I now have plenty of evidence of your misogyny and bigoted hubris.
Anecdotal evidence is better than mere opinion.
I wasn't trying top suggest people are dying younger, I was demonstrating that your claim that people live longer isn't anything to do with actual length of life of actual people, and more to do with the way averages work.
I wasn't trying top suggest people are dying younger, I was demonstrating that your claim that people live longer isn't anything to do with actual length of life of actual people, and more to do with the way averages work.
November 21, 2025 at 9:44 PM
Anecdotal evidence is better than mere opinion.
I wasn't trying top suggest people are dying younger, I was demonstrating that your claim that people live longer isn't anything to do with actual length of life of actual people, and more to do with the way averages work.
I wasn't trying top suggest people are dying younger, I was demonstrating that your claim that people live longer isn't anything to do with actual length of life of actual people, and more to do with the way averages work.
This is an AI opinion from where? I don't see any citations.
November 21, 2025 at 9:43 PM
This is an AI opinion from where? I don't see any citations.
No, I am saying that infant mortality rates are, thankfully, much lower than they used to be.
It's not that people are living longer, it's that more people are living a whole life and fewer are dying in infancy, which skews the 'averages'.
That's maths, by the way.
It's not that people are living longer, it's that more people are living a whole life and fewer are dying in infancy, which skews the 'averages'.
That's maths, by the way.
November 21, 2025 at 9:42 PM
No, I am saying that infant mortality rates are, thankfully, much lower than they used to be.
It's not that people are living longer, it's that more people are living a whole life and fewer are dying in infancy, which skews the 'averages'.
That's maths, by the way.
It's not that people are living longer, it's that more people are living a whole life and fewer are dying in infancy, which skews the 'averages'.
That's maths, by the way.
Rather a rare and specific datapoint to base such an enormous, over-arching claim that kids are 'safer' on.
Link up the source, please, I'd love to read more about it.
Link up the source, please, I'd love to read more about it.
November 21, 2025 at 9:40 PM
Rather a rare and specific datapoint to base such an enormous, over-arching claim that kids are 'safer' on.
Link up the source, please, I'd love to read more about it.
Link up the source, please, I'd love to read more about it.
Farage? WTF are you talking about?
November 21, 2025 at 9:37 PM
Farage? WTF are you talking about?
What is nonsense?
November 19, 2025 at 8:49 PM
What is nonsense?
Kids were far less safe?
What are you basing that on?
What are you basing that on?
November 19, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Kids were far less safe?
What are you basing that on?
What are you basing that on?
My grandparents all loved to the nineties. As did their siblings. My parents lived to 69 and 84. So no, people didn't 'die sooner' - life expectancy is mostly determined by levels of infant and child mortality - more ppl died very young (though far less than in the earlier 20c thanks to vaccines etc
November 19, 2025 at 8:49 PM
My grandparents all loved to the nineties. As did their siblings. My parents lived to 69 and 84. So no, people didn't 'die sooner' - life expectancy is mostly determined by levels of infant and child mortality - more ppl died very young (though far less than in the earlier 20c thanks to vaccines etc
Households didn't NEED a car, that's why ppl didn't have one.
For the reasons I already outlined.
Was the world perfect? Absolutely not. But Thatcher changed society for the worse in many ways, ones that really matter.
For the reasons I already outlined.
Was the world perfect? Absolutely not. But Thatcher changed society for the worse in many ways, ones that really matter.
November 19, 2025 at 8:47 PM
Households didn't NEED a car, that's why ppl didn't have one.
For the reasons I already outlined.
Was the world perfect? Absolutely not. But Thatcher changed society for the worse in many ways, ones that really matter.
For the reasons I already outlined.
Was the world perfect? Absolutely not. But Thatcher changed society for the worse in many ways, ones that really matter.
1978 wasn't 1975, and a full third didn't have colour TV even in 78. That's quite a lot isn't it, the 'bottom 35%' of the population.
If you weren't in that 35%, you were privileged.
If you weren't in that 35%, you were privileged.
November 19, 2025 at 8:45 PM
1978 wasn't 1975, and a full third didn't have colour TV even in 78. That's quite a lot isn't it, the 'bottom 35%' of the population.
If you weren't in that 35%, you were privileged.
If you weren't in that 35%, you were privileged.
And as I said, everyone could afford somewhere to live, families could live on one income, neighbours were your community, not your competition for the little on offer.
Old ppl didn't die freezing and alone because they were forgotten. Kids could play safe in streets without getting run over. etc
Old ppl didn't die freezing and alone because they were forgotten. Kids could play safe in streets without getting run over. etc
November 19, 2025 at 8:44 PM
And as I said, everyone could afford somewhere to live, families could live on one income, neighbours were your community, not your competition for the little on offer.
Old ppl didn't die freezing and alone because they were forgotten. Kids could play safe in streets without getting run over. etc
Old ppl didn't die freezing and alone because they were forgotten. Kids could play safe in streets without getting run over. etc
Lack of 'walkable' life - shopping, amenities etc no longer in the neighbourhood.
Lack of 'community' - there is no such thing as society, etc was a policy that worked to its intended purpose.
Decent mixed areas became sink estates where the last remaining social housing exists.
etc etc
Lack of 'community' - there is no such thing as society, etc was a policy that worked to its intended purpose.
Decent mixed areas became sink estates where the last remaining social housing exists.
etc etc
November 19, 2025 at 8:41 PM
Lack of 'walkable' life - shopping, amenities etc no longer in the neighbourhood.
Lack of 'community' - there is no such thing as society, etc was a policy that worked to its intended purpose.
Decent mixed areas became sink estates where the last remaining social housing exists.
etc etc
Lack of 'community' - there is no such thing as society, etc was a policy that worked to its intended purpose.
Decent mixed areas became sink estates where the last remaining social housing exists.
etc etc
Once again you miss the point.
Are the billionaire class poorer than they were in 2008? No.
Are they poorer than they were in 2020? No.
Everyone else? Yes and Yes.
Do you enjoy the taste of boot polish?
Are the billionaire class poorer than they were in 2008? No.
Are they poorer than they were in 2020? No.
Everyone else? Yes and Yes.
Do you enjoy the taste of boot polish?
November 19, 2025 at 8:32 PM
Once again you miss the point.
Are the billionaire class poorer than they were in 2008? No.
Are they poorer than they were in 2020? No.
Everyone else? Yes and Yes.
Do you enjoy the taste of boot polish?
Are the billionaire class poorer than they were in 2008? No.
Are they poorer than they were in 2020? No.
Everyone else? Yes and Yes.
Do you enjoy the taste of boot polish?