CharonY

You are aware that an university is not public grounds? Also, you claim that people should "man up" to discussion and be confronted with opposing views. Whereas when it happens to you, you start hurling insults. Unless of course, you think that is what "manning up" means.

If you are interested in some dietary trials: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924204/ Although it focuses more on hypertension. Also, it doesn't actually factor in weight that much. So basically it is missing the question in OP. Sorry about that.

And this clearly shows that you do not engage in the discussion in good faith. It appears that you were seeking the comfort of warmth of a safe echo chamber in which your preconceptions are amplified. As a side note, my irony meter just decided to kill itself.

It should be noted that there is big difference between things that are organized by the administration, faculty or students, respectively. If a student group wanted to organize a Magic the gathering tournament you probably do not want a bunch of people around that insult them as "neckbeard virgins" (what does that even mean?) and/or having people there that disrupt the event by claiming monopoly is the only game worth playing. Is obsession with such a money and soul sucking game healthy? Probably not. But it is not the job of the uni to regulate that and if students rent a room or get permission to use one they (usually) are left to do their things as long as it does not violate uni policies. If it is organized by faculty, it is far more likely intended to be an educational event and should be moderated. That, however does include to minimize disruptions to enable a civil discourse. If, for example some women make a point that they feel unsafe on campus, it is fine to cite crime statistics and point out to the safety measures on campus and tell them how to access them. However, if you decide to tell them to grow a pair (of neckbeards maybe?-still unsure what that means) and stop being pussies, you deserve to be kicked out for being a disruptive douchebag.

Look, I have an issue with criticizing whole cultures as an isolated elements. The reason being that many people assume that a) "culture" is an inherent property to certain people, b) that is rarely or not changeable and c) they cherry-pick positive aspects of their own culture and contrast them to others and d) typically do not have in-depth insight about what they characterize as "culture" anyway. As such it usually devolves into comparison of the caricatures of someone's assumed best elements with the worst of others without nuance nor insight. Let us talk about women's rights, for example. How do the various societies stack up? Are the UAE identical to Saudi Arabia? How about Bosnia? Azerbeijan? Kuwait? Indonesia? Can we really get a meaningful discussion going here? Also, I do not get the immigration thing. Conditions are different for different types of people. Saudia Arabia has recruited many academics from Europe and North America by offering tremendous salaries and opportunities, for example. There are also many unskilled labors that work under far more deplorable situations there. According to wiki a census in 2010 showed that 31% of the Saudi population are expats. So, yeah lots of people go there by following the money.

A problem with supremacists is that almost by definition they have elements of hate speech as they define themselves by their perceived superiority (not to mention that the nation is default white). However, if they just want to pat themselves on their back by e.g. discussing the highlights of European/US history (also known as "history" in schools) and just focus on the white majority, that is probably fine. Or if they start discussions against "PC-culture" or third-wave feminism (or whatever it is called) it is probably also fine, if they manage not to devolve into vitriol-fueled rants. It doesn't mean that people will like it, but depending on the venue they can probably easily meet up without harassment. If it occurs, they have options to complain to administration. For the most part, however, little is done to restrict discussions on campus. There have been anti-LGBT individuals who distributed flyers and engaged people in civil discussions, for example. I think it is a bit of a difference if you are actually in a vulnerable group, which are potentially disadvantaged in some way (including e.g addictions, mental health issues etc.). I have a hard time seeing that to be the case for supremacists of any kind. Ironically for supremacy being part of the majority group probably works against them.

And this is why all the other aspects (such as political environment) are also of relevance.

Even worse, it is a self-perpetuating issue that has found its way into the criminal justice system as well as in common perception. I.e. blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate, therefore they are more criminal. therefore blacks are under more scrutiny which results in disproportionate number of arrests, cementing the stereotype that blacks are more criminal and so on. This is precisely why "common sense", which is usually based on the interpretation and extrapolation of incomplete information not only wrong, but also immensely harmful to society. Even worse, because a little (biased) info is used, the people in question confirm their bias and assume that their position is unassailable. It then becomes the argument that "they" deserved it, after all that is what the numbers show. Yet, the factors leading to those numbers which are stacked against certain groups are getting ignored. Edit: crossposted. But have you bothered to read the links that Swansont provided?

Trump's answer surely sound transcribed.

I wouldn't take any bets on the floor, though. Outside of cleanrooms they can end up being ghastly, if only due to the crap you are dragging in.

There are a number of things an off the top of my head would be: stable and improved governance, rule of law, more democracy. Parallel to that (or maybe even before), addressing societal inequality, increase overall standard of living, civil rights, political freedom, better education etc. Of course, better educated people could do a much better job in evaluating this matter. However, since these factors appear to be drivers in the Western world, it would make sense that they would also influence other societies. But obviously, things may not always develop predictably as current Turkey or European history has shown.

Uhm, no that is at best a bit confused. TFs are generally proteins that bind to DNA and thereby control, one way or another the rate of transcription ("rate of a particular sequence appearing on mRNA" makes not sense whatsoever). Micro RNAs are involved in the post-transcriptional regulation. Look up what was known as the "central dogma of molecular biology" to get a better idea of the sequence of events from gene to protein.

You mean where one candidate responded to the question and the other countered with random stream of thought? Edit: to be fair, two provided actual answers, but none of them were Trump

I do not think that that much has changed. However, we do have social media that likes to feed on outrage. During my days you could have study/discussion groups and you could get kicked out of them if you were consistently a jerk. Not much came out of that. But now everyone can twitter how ("insert group here") is violating their free speech or something. And I think you are overthinking this. Sometimes people meet to have meaningful discussion and for sensitive topics it could be helpful to moderate (this is why this forum is not such a cesspool of ignorance as you may find elsewhere). Sometimes people start building echo chambers. As educators you try to encourage the former and challenge the latter, but some things just develop organically.

The thing is that a PhD is nothing like school. Here, you are expected to actually utilize your skills on a consistent basis. It is actually far more work and requires a lot more initiative and self-motivation. Different supervisors look out for different traits, but one that is commonly sought after is persistence. So if you can demonstrate that you will work harder than everyone else in order to a) overcome the knowledge gap compared to those that may have had more applicable courses, b) learn new skills required to perform the necessary tasks and c) be sufficiently motivated to no crack when it does not work out the first (or fifth!) time, then you have a fighting chance. But if you mentally already prepare yourself to not being able to make it, it will likely sap motivation out of you. And I won't be willing to risk funding someone who is not willing to fight through the inevitable frustration that will build up during actual research.

So in other words, if people enacted law based on Sharia using the regular mechanisms, it would not be an issue? And are you sure that in all Muslim countries law is enacted by clerics? Also, you may be aware of Muslim countries who actually do not use Sharia law as a legal framework? There is an interconnection between the legal system and how much people adhere (or don't) to certain belief systems, of course. However, the discussion was kicked off by polls indicating the attitude of the population. And while the US has a secular system, its people are not 99% secular.

These things happen on campus fairly. Sometimes they are invited, sometimes they preach or hand out flyers. The worst the unis I worked in have done is to e.g. send emails around that in some part of the campus there will be graphic displays from pro-lifers. An actual safe space to me is a place where rare viewpoints can be carefully addressed and not be drowned out by dominating perspectives.

While I generally agree that being exposed to opposing viewpoints is net beneficial, one should also be aware that minority have potentially the issue that their viewpoints get drowned out. For example, if we discuss how to network our way to jobs, a black student may start asking how he/she should deal with stereotypes and potential racism. 99% of the class is not interested in that aspect and for some reasons there are always a few offended by the idea that racism matters at all. Now if one would organize a lecture surrounding this issue to address the specific issues that minorities would realistically face, would that be considered a "safe space" and would that be bad?

An important point. However, why is it that in some areas punishment for certain crimes are less severe in others? For example, why is in Europe/Canad the death penalty not accepted for any kind of crime, while it is in the USA? Is it really the religion itself, or other developments? See, we are actually talking about several thing. One is the ideology and their interpretation. If we look from that angle alone, we won't find a lot of difference between religions, who basically were formed in a very different time. Now, in order to criticize Islam people now conflate their criticism of religion (which would be basically valid for basically all religions) but point out to its current impact to make the point that it is something inherent to Islam and by extension to Muslims that causes the mentioned problems. What is overlooked, of course is that it is a very one-dimensional view on a multi-dimensional problem. The situation in Afghanistan is very different from Iran, Iraq or Jordan, for example. The attitudes in the respective societies have changed and shifted (or not) according to the political and societal situation and is clearly not monolithic. Another point that is often overlooked is that the society also determines how views are expressed in public. For example, recent surveys in Germany have shown that up to 30% of the people held views that were very close or identical to the anti-democratic ideologies of the national socialists in the 30s. Yet the way the constitution is set up and how public discourse is held, reduces the likelihood of the rise of a dictatorship. Likewise, instability can bring out atrocities that can utilize every ideology, religion, bigotery or pseudo-science to bring out the worst atrocities (the last one in Europe being the aftermath after the breakup of Yugoslavia). I.e. if Germany was embroiled in a civil war, these extreme beliefs are much more likely to be acted upon. Of course it is necessary to point out issues and engage in discussions, but the big issue is that in many cases the criticism is so sweeping that it prohibits any constructive dialogue. Even worse, by blaming all one a singular factor (Islam), ignoring all external factors and therefore declare all Muslims (regardless of background) to be unfit members of our society is not only a flawed argument, but also a harmful one. Others have pointed it out already, but think of it that way. If you believe that certain people have something and you believe it cannot be changed (regardless whether it is true or not). And then think that it is inherently bad and therefore those people are unfit to become members of our society. How is that not bigoted? Another question one could ask is why in some areas religion has a stronger influence on society. For example, we can see that in Azerbeijan the support for Sharia as law of the land is at 8%, whereas in Afghanistan it is 99%. Or in Lebanon we find 29% agreement, whereas in Russia it is 42%. Or taking apostasty as a benchmark for the grip religion has on society. Among those that support Sharia law the support for the death penalty for apostasy ranges from 4% (Kazhakstan, putting the overall support among Muslims for the death penalty for apostasy at 0.4%), to as high as 86% in Egypt (~60% total). What I would find interesting is changes in attitude over time and overlay that with major political upheavals. Again, it is a multi factorial issue and needs to be discussed as such.

1+2 are safe. 3+4 are a bit on the weak side. If you want to pursue a PhD in an area that is a bit away from your major you need some strong elements in your application, especially when you are transferring (it is usually easier to evaluate a student that has been in the institution for a bit). Getting undergrad research in a relevant field, or even better, in the group you want to join would be a big help. However, how do you plan to get that? Basically, what would give you preference over other candidates that are interested in a PhD position?

Not if your goal is to understand the world (and yourself) better.

The problem is that anything that is as broad and embedded requires a careful treatment and analysis that must be more encompassing than the latest news headlines. It is also important that one discusses the actual points rather than a caricature of what you think it is. And this requires a deep conversation with people involved in it and that have studied it. Virtually anything, if treated superficial enough can be discarded as irrational, unscientific etc. For example, I could easily make the case that modern capitalism is going to enslave us all. Or that socialism will create murderous dictatorship. But that would only betray my own ignorance.

As a side note, I would like to point out that MLK and the civil rights movement were far more disruptive than anything we see today. Also, I find it curious that most claims of racism I noticed were from the right, i.e. reiterating the fear of being called out as racist, as opposed to the times they are actually being called out (which is usually reserved for the most blatant instances). It seems to me that the right seems to be keener on safe spaces than anyone else at this point. It is also part of tone deafness in certain people. Obviously not all criticism against, say, Islam should be slammed as being bigoted. However, if someone starts with "Islam is violent and responsible for terror and suppression of women" etc, , it is difficult to assume that a nuanced discussion in good faith can be conducted. But being uneducated (on either side of a given issue) is a big part of all this. If people have some simplified idea what certain things are and label them accordingly, it is going to be a discussion about label and not substance.

The F@#ck did I do?

If popular science is your thing I highly recommend taking creative writing classes.