CharonY

! Moderator Note Please provide more details on your project here an explain some of the mechanisms you propose (rather than directing to a different website). Going from the image it does seem to be more speculative to me than an actual working project, but feel free to correct me.

Especially with all the additional troops, they could literally task each of them bringing each of the claimants food and water and still have folks left. According to ICE reports the average detention time is ~34 days. Decision for cases takes an average of over 1000 days, though. While there are cases in which it has been argued that detention should not be longer than half a year, there are cases of folks held up to five years. Other key data from a recent ICE report: average daily population is 39k people, though the range is broad and increasing due to the desire to keep folks in detention. The latest daily numbers are at 42k. They have limited capacity for juveniles, and in some facilities they have been held 100-240 days. Most of the folks are held by private companies (ca. 70%).

Also, no one has an objective view on matters. Everyone has their own experiences and knowledge which will affect how things are seen and perceived. In addition, a speech does not necessarily reflect ones view on the world. Actions are often more accurate than that.

In some ways I wonder what would happen if one would transpose someone like Trump with dictators like e.g. Stalin. Would Trump be similarly cunning in establishing his power and utilizing the weaknesses of the system to get his way? Conversely, are the mechanisms in modern democracies resilient enough to withstand a ruthless dictator?

Think of it as degrees in similar directions rather than a simple binary (i.e. yes/no) type of situation. It is not even about good or bad either, which would be value judgement, but rather in terms of attitude toward media and perceived enemies. The overall point is not if someone equals Hitler, as you seem to be focused on, but rather the balancing act between maintaining a free and democratic societies and autocratic desires to undermine said structure. It is a general folly to assume that democratic systems in itself have perfect failsafes (the Weimar Republic serves as a clear example). The rise of far right groups is not the same as a coming of a second Hitler, but it is going to test the system as they clearly have anti-democratic, autocratic goals (as exemplified by the desire to undermined the independence of the judiciary, for example. Trump, as I have mentioned before, clearly shows autocratic desires and a significant proportion of the populace is cheering him on. Your argument was mainly that the only (or at least main way) that folks like Hitler could get to power was due to economic catastrophes. And my overall point is that it is not a requirement, otherwise we would not have such a far-right swing in much of Europe. Or perhaps to put it more succinctly, folks do not need to be in desperate situations in order to get radicalized. Often it is sufficient to make them feel that way (say, by drawing a hellscape of carnage and violence).

Yes, precisely. Thanks for the link, I thought there was a concept for it, but forgot what it was called. As a side note, a while back I saw an interesting set of polls regarding racism in the USA all the way back to the 40s or earlier, I think. The fascinating bit was that throughout all that time, the majority of the public was clearly opposed to racism. But considering that the poll went back to the Jim Crow era, it just shows that what has actually changed is what is considered racist. So there is a double layer in that discourse.

My concern is related, it could lead to the normalization of the new state and then things go further from there...

I think you ignore the whole context here. Hitler did not just come to power and declared himself ruler. There was a path starting from an underdog situation. The rise to power was characterized by massive political but also violent struggles, including forceful intimidation tactics. Once he solidified his power way later, because everyone that could push back was either dead or isolated. So in order for Trump to get to that point he would have to achieve that and it is unlikely that he has the support to do so. However, the moves he tries, have superficial similarities. Villification of certain groups in order to rally their base, trying to diminish the influence of media (and facts), trying to increase influence over the branches of the legislature and judiciary with a focus on personal loyalty and so on. Though of course that playbook has been used by autocratic leaders, which goes to his overall mind set. Also note that the rise of the NSDAP was not solely due to economic woes nor was there broad support from the populace. It started with targeting certain key groups (specifically male protestant rural voters) and expansion of power over other areas as it grew. While the situation may be different as whole, outright declaring that existing institutions are immune from radicalization is dangerous. And in recent years we see that in almost all established Western democracies. It is especially worrisome as much of the modern far-right movement is not so much driven by economic challenges, which would at least be somewhat understandable and something one could address. But for a significant part the be mobilization of non-traditional voters, driven by racism and sexism (as identified by many studies by now) plays an important role. Those folks feel themselves threatened to the core of the their identity and are prime target for radicalism.

Could not agree more. In practical terms, if it was handled that way, in my mind it would be also be easier to reject asylum claims and minimize incidences such as these. Instead, militarizing the situation, both literally and metaphorically is only there to score cheap political points and raise tensions. The cynical part in me thinks that the only thing that happened is that someone took off the sugar coating and revealed the barb wire beneath.

! Moderator Note I think this is enough. I am going to lock this thread for mod review and cleaning up and see whether anything is salvagable here.

Sure, however my overall point was that Hitler did not swoop into power with only little pushback because of the economic situation. What Trump tries to do, however, betrays an anti-democratic, authoritarian mindset, which is worrisome to many.

There was a huge pushback and open, often violent conflict between the various groups. While in the early days the Nazis were considered to be rabble that one should not associated with, they eventually got support from conservative groups, in an effort to oppose communist movements. Ultimate establishing the Nazi party as the leading fraction involved a lot of violence, purge of all internal and external opposition as well as full control of media and cooperation of the Industrial complex. In other words, there was nothing magic that made Hitler the supreme leader. It was the systematic dismantling of functions, oppositions and mechansism that could reign him in. The main question really is whether the mechanisms we have as well as the historic lessons are sufficient to prevent such occurrences. Rather obviously Trump tries a different tack. Rather than outright dismantling media, he tries to convince folks not to listen to them. And for some folks that has been frighteningly efficient.

I think you are mixing up different groups. A bit of history, perhaps to clear things up. In the 60-70s in parallel to rising feminist groups there was also the men's liberation movement. In many ways there goals were similar to the feminist movement of their time. I.e. a rethinking of gender role in modern society. However. this movement underwent a split. A part was pro-feminist and sought saw the similarity in the goals. They are now part of the modern feminist movement. The folks interviewed in the movement, however, are the other split of the same movement (predominatnly from the moderate-right to conservative branch). However that group became increasingly anti-feminist and considered men to be the truly oppressed party. That in fact, their suffering are not institutional (as asserted by feminist and pro-feminist men's liberation folks) but rather because of the increase of feminism. In a way, it is similar to another extreme range within the feminist side, which outright reject masculinity and claim that all the issues are solely to lie on the feet of men. The disservice that these folks are doing is that both are barking up the wrong trees when it comes to actual issues and do not much but muddy the water and blame each other. And yes there are men's group that are a positive force and are actively involved in gender justice such as MenEngage and what you describe is closer what they and other groups are doing.But again, the folks highlighted in the movie are, for the most part, unfortunately not them, which I find is one of the biggest failings of it. Among these interviewed are e.g. the president of the National Coalition for Men, who actively deny that women have ever been discriminated against, claim, against all evidence, that false rape accusations are rampant and have posted photos and names of folks that they think of as false accusers and so on. It is distinctly anti-feminist at its core, especially as they seek to oppose what they call "women industries" who are actively oppressing men. This is a distinct change from the view of gender issues as a societal problem. And within their respective spheres the leaders of the various groups have also shown controversial views and engaged in scummy tactics. And again, it is not that there are underlying issues that need to be addressed. But they poison the well by pointing to feminists and declare that to be the problem, similar when folks point to immigrants for economic woes.

Yes it has. I got curious and started looking in my free time at some research on Poland. It is quite interesting, but I need much more time to make any sense of it, to be honest. Hoefer et al. published a paper on suicide trends in Poland between 1970 and 2009 and there is a substantial increase, predominantly in men. From the little reading I got the most common explanations include: - undercounting of femal suicide (there is some evidence that more female than male suicides are put in the category "death with undetermined intent", which is especially high for poisoning) - lower help-seeking behaviour (as outlined above) - underdiagnosis of the so-called "male depressive syndrome" which is characterized by low stress tolerance, impulse control and highly linked to suicide - potential increase in male mental health following the post-soviet era (haven't looked at that lit yet, but there seems to be quite a few things out there) One of the take home messages however is that there may be a lack of support structure for suicidal folks potential coupled with social stigma. If one feels depressed or otherwise, it is important to seek help.

My feeling is that you are underinformed in the theoretical framework surrounding gender differences in suicide (and other aspects of social science) and frankly, that is quite understandable. I had a lot of misconceptions myself (especially when I was young scientist with a certain disdain of social sciences). However, over years I got to meet quite a few researchers from that field and they cured me of a part of my ignorance, which sparked my interest in the field in the first place. Thus, rather than being tainted by ideology, I merely gained a bit of more insight what the works actually mean. I.e. if you think that the use of the term "patriarchy" means taking sides, then you are probably using the term in a different way than defined in science. To make it a bit clearer: in sociological sciences a patriarchy refers to a social system in which it is assumed that there is a natural distinction between men and women when it comes to social roles. It explains the dominance of men in positions of e.g. political power, authorative positions and so on as natural the consequence of these differences. It is important to note that it does not describe women as bad and men as good (or any of the other misconceptions). It also does not place blame on a gender or has other ideological connotation. Rather, it is the description of a system in which it is assumed that man and women have naturally different roles in society leading to a natural order of power. Thus, in a patriarchic system it is assumed that men are naturally the head of a family unit, as provider and protector. Women as the weaker gender would primarily viewed as support and nurturer. This a very simplicistic description, but leads to the consequences I mentioned above. In this society, a man who is unable to provide or does not appear strong is, in fact not fulfilling its obligation as man. Thus, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, a system which elevates the power position of men, also puts a massive amount of obligation one men, more so on women in many aspects. Together with the issue that men are supposed to be self-reliant and more independent than women, seems to have some impact on increased suicide rates (rather than attempted suicide and/or reaching out for help when having suicidal thoughts) of men compared to women in a number of societies. Note that this is not universally the case. In China, for example, completed suicide in women is higher than for men. Some studies suggest that it may be in line with their failure in familail success (though there are also other potential contributing factors). I will also say that this is of course at best only one part of the issue (I just happened to have some of those papers fresh in my mind), there is a lot of more lit out there but so far much of it is still explorative and there is quite some disagreement about the relevance of different contributions. The important point though is that there is increasing evidence that at least some elements seems to be connected how we see different gender roles. Whether you want to call it patriarchy or any other name, if that term somehow offends you, does not matter. The key concept is in terms of suicide research is that men are under higher societal pressure in certain respects of society, combined with the inability to fulfill societal expectations. The correlation with socioeconomic success, is one strong indicator for high suicide rate of middle-aged men in the US, for example (but does not explain youth suicide). And this would only make sense in a patriarchic system where men are expected to be performers in that regard. I should also add that there are some publications that contest the gender role aspect and point to diverse other elements. Including a presumed higher resilience to stress. Though I have not found sufficient of those to see a proper direction emerging. Personally I do think that there are regional and cultural overlays that may play a more important role than those overarching theories imply and more fine-grained research would be needed to figure that out. Edit: I should add that an additional common misconception is that in a patriarchic society evil men are oppressing poor women. It may be a consequence in many cases, but the framework assumes that this is a societal structure. I.e. women contribute to the system as well as men (albeit typically via different mechanisms). In a patriarchic society women could therefore be less driven (and are therefore less stressed) to succeed economically, but may also contribute to the stress one men, as they, too expect and demand men to succeed in that regard.

Ok this is a bit topic with a lot of literature and I am going to preface that due to the complexity there is no universal answer and certainly not one applicable to all societies. I will also start by stating that the issue with the movie is not bringing up the issue (it is the only redeemable element of it) but promoting or at least implying reasons that are often bad science or at least oversimplifying the issue or discuss it in a way that is entirely based on a lack of an understanding of modern research on feminism and gender issues. And by mostly focusing on controversial figures in the narrative, the filmmaker is doing the difficult question a disservice. It is a bit like trying to reconcile modern politics mostly by interviewing youtube personalities. Now that that is out of the way I have to further add that I have not read a lot studies on Poland specifically, so it is not clear what other reports, which were mostly conducted in North America (and quite a few in South Korea) apply. The topic is, as I mentioned, quite large and difficult and a single post will not suffice to even put a dent into existing literature. One thing that is striking and actually has been found in several countries over the world is the so-called gender paradox: women attempts suicide more often, but men complete (i.e. die from) suicide more frequently. For now I will try to address some of the lit that I recall on that specific matter. 1) means of suicide. A part of the puzzle are suicide methods. Men are more likely to use methods that are violent and have a higher risk of death (esp. firearms). Women tend to go for pills (which are very ineffective) and exsanguination. But this can only be seen as a part of the issue. And in some areas it could be consider a minor element. 2) Men are far less likely to search for help when they start having suicidal thoughts. This is a part that the movie almost starts to get right and the veers into a weird direction. There are several explanation. However, one concept that has been explored more in recent years involve the issue of toxic masculinity under the broader concept of patriarchy. Simply (and I am probably doing social scientists a disfavour here, so my apologies for butchering the concept), in strongly patriarchic societies, men are expected to conform to certain norms of masculinity. And one of the aspects that can be considered to be toxic for men is the fact that they are supposed to be strong and self-reliant. I.e. asking for help is seen as a weakness and emasculating. I think quite a few men can somewhat relate to that. I still observe in myself that I'd rather spend too much time researching how a particular tool or piece for some work is called rather than just ask someone who knows his stuff because I feel like an idiot. It is silly, but often one can help oneself as one has been educated as such as a child. Not getting help during depression or otherwise being in situations where suicidal thoughts arise are an extreme version of it. What the movie gets wrong is that it presents that as opposing view on women's right. In fact both, power imbalance of women and disadvantaging men when they need help, are outcrops and consequences of a patriarchic system. 3) Somewhat connected, there are often different social structures that help in prevention, and in many groups they are stronger with females. Men are more likely to have fewer familal connections, though it depends a lot on the individual and cultural background. 4) Another connected element is that in a patriarchic society men are expected to be the provider in a family. Socioeconomic downturns therefore place a higher burden (societal and mental) on men than women. 5) Even if patriarchies are one important aspect, other cultural norms, connected or not also seem to have an influence. In Hispanic communities within the USA female suicide is higher than male suicide, for example 6) Age, ethnicity and many more factors: as can be seen, if one starts at data in more detail more patterns emerge that make overarching narratives difficult. In some communities suicide rate is highest for middle-aged men. In others, younger folks have a higher rate. In some areas especially younger women complete suicide more frequently than their age peers. Each of those factors have been subjected to studies and a variety of conclusions have been drawn. As intersectionality is becoming more of a thing more finer grained research is being conducted and published. There is much more out there to talk about, but a) the post is already long and I really, really do not want to spellcheck so just a final point for now: i will go back to the movie after all now here: The part that the movie gets right in that respect is that often there is more focus on the women's side in the feminist movement. There are reasons for that, mostly because those can be addressed via legal challenges (e.g. discrimination lawsuits). However, forcing society to think conceptually different of male and female roles in society rather than e.g. workplace of places of power (which again is part of the broader feminist movement), is far more a niche discussion. The ultimate sin of the movie is that instead of interviewing folks in the feminist movement that have their roots in the Men's Liberation movement, they went to the anti-feminists to get the opposing view. That latter group is doing little but in fact increase the gender tension and if anything promote just a different flavour of toxic masculinity. There are plenty of groups within the broader feminist movement (and I think the issue is really the historic naming of the movement that make people thing it is only about women) that fall under the concept of the Men's liberation movement that would have been far more educational to talk to (or perhaps sociologist studying that field). Edit: with respect to Poland and high suicide rates, there seems to be a similar trend as in Russia: levels of addiction, including alcohol, are increasing and those seem to coincide also with higher suicide rate. While addiction is also present in women and increasing, the rate still seems lower. It also coincides regionally, alcohol addiction is higher in rural regions, where the suicide rates are also higher. Whether the reason is causative or just incidental to other causes (e.g. socioeconomic stress) is different to disentangle, of course. There are other factors, such as lung cancer rates being fairly high in Poland, though I am not sure whether the rates are different enough between men and women to make an impact.

Yeah, stop being silly.

There are rules on this forums, that you have agreed to when you signed up. See here. While you are free to make suggestions, if you cannot live with those rules and the discussion of mainstream science, then probably a Science forum may not be quite your cup of tea.

Why the heck would anyone use stem cells for that process? Leather is mostly collagen so to make vat grown leather it would be easier to a) utilize cell cultures that produce collagen naturally (i.e. not stem cells) or even create production strains (e.g. yeast or bacteria) that can produce it.

! Moderator Note Would be good if folks stick to the topic of multicellular organisms that can survive anaerobically (which, btw. are typically not really complex, though it may be a mattter of definition).

Nope. Chronic lack of sleep does increase mortality. Cases in Japan and elsewhere are based on that. Chronic sleep deprivation. But sure, find a case study where folks died from staying awake a couple of days. In fact, why don't you tell me about voluntary sleep deprivation studies and show how many died in them? The etiology is entirely different and there are additional risk factors pertaining to death as well as the timing of neurological damage. As such the direct comparison of these situations seems to be very far off. More importantly though, since you claim to know so much, why don't you tell us about the mechanisms leading to death in FFI? How can you be so sure that insomnia is not merely the accompanying symptom of the prion disease but the causative agent of death. I will acknowledge that we know more about the involved mechanisms in descriptive terms rather in functional and causative terms. However, since you have studied that in depth, I would be interested how you solved that puzzle. I hope it is not just because of the name of the disease, as you keep repeating, because that is not how it works. That does not explain the causation between the neurodegradation and death. Have you, for example looked into more recent research involving e.g. the role of mitochondrial dysfunctions? But again, where is the evidence specifically that the loss of sleep causes mortality and not the damage which results in insomnia in the first place? I am so skeptical about that one.

I will add the rather important caveat that it also depends on what is considered a top student. In that context it is important to note that most see getting good grades as the low bar of entry. However, there are folks who have perhaps decent but not top grades, but excel more in a lab environment. So there is that. Also, neither of these are predictive of an actual career in science. Once you try to get an actual career (i.e. beyond postdoc) the competition requires you to have completely different skill sets than just being a good student (e.g. great networking and leadership skills).

You are very welcome. One thing I should add, despite the fact that I talked about from an academic perspective, you will find similar challenges in all areas of work. I.e. the ability to identify and avoid or deal with these situations are pretty much needed everywhere. It is not so much whether it is science or industry or any other field. It really is all about the folks you interact with.

Not sure why you think that folks treat it as a closed system. These are again two things. In that period the climate was dominated by La Niña conditions. However, based on my understanding , long-term predictions of these conditions are not possible. For similar reason as long-term prediction of a the movement of a ball or weather is not. Thus, long-term climate models are not predictive of these events, which require measurements close to the initiation of these events. However, if one integrates it into existing climate models, they are able to accurately calculate the measured values. That. in turn means that the models accurately reflect climate events outside of the El Nino oscillations (which includes the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere).

Oh I am sure there are plenty of such cases. However, the reason why voter fraud is very low is simply that there is no incentive for individual frauds (after all, the effect would be negligibly low). It would need a systematic effort to actually have an effect and that would be much harder to hide.