Windows 10 Pro. I'm running a 32-bit OS right now—even though my processor is x64. That's what the system says. I'm trying to download Java so I can finally dive into programming—but is it failing because I'm missing some other setup or something?
I was trying to grab some Java software from this site for my 32-bit Windows setup. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ja...s-2133151.html I actually tried downloading the Windows 64 version—not totally sure what the difference is, honestly—and I got this warning saying the file type could potentially harm my computer. I’m guessing it's just because it's an .exe file, right? Just wanted to double-check if it's actually safe to download from here and if the Java version will even work on my OS.
So, I whipped up a graphic in CorelDRAW, exported it for Office, and tried pasting it into Word 2016. Everything—lines, curves, all of it—except for the stuff from the symbols library, turned out super faint and barely visible once it hit the document.
Any idea how to fix this? What went wrong? I'm using the CorelDRAW X8 evaluation version.
Zachary Reed said:Yeah, at the end of the day, it’s all about the people—because any social system is just something humans built, right? It doesn't matter how a system works on paper if it fails in the real world. Society needs leaders who actually give a damn about making things better—which is a never-ending job, since there's always room for improvement—rather than people just chasing their own agendas.
Is it just an unavoidable fact that power goes to those acting out of self-interest? Does getting a taste of authority automatically turn someone into a bad person—like some kind of universal rule? Or is it that voters just keep picking the wrong people? If that's true, then every single system that grants individual authority is fundamentally broken. That leaves us with anarchy, where—in my view—people will still bully each other, it just won't be organized.
I don't buy the idea that power inherently makes people evil.
The thing is, good people often don't even *want* to get into politics. Why? Because we've been conditioned to see politics as nothing but lying, demagoguery, and corruption. But decent folks are often interested in civic issues—they start nonprofits, they write political blogs, etc.—yet they always seem stuck on the sidelines. How do they stay sidelined? Are the major party leaders actively keeping them there? If so, how? We live in a democracy where everyone gets a vote, so why does the average citizen trust a crook or a liar more than someone actually decent? Maybe it's the demagoguery, the propaganda, or the media spin. If that's the case, shouldn't we be focusing on teaching people how to think for themselves? But honestly, how do you even pull that off?
We’re living in an era where hardly anyone still buys into the idea that hugging liberal capitalism is our ticket to a bright future. Let’s be real—the whole communist experiment was a massive, public failure. Why? Because on paper, it looked great. It felt humane. But people... people just failed.
That’s why we need structure—a system. Maybe man isn't a wolf to man, or even a dog to man. Honestly, humans can be anything—good, bad, or just plain unpredictable. We can't bank on individual behavior alone. A system exists to neutralize that "human factor." But there's a paradox there, right? We're trying to organize a community of actual people, not a pile of inanimate minerals. Is that why it always falls apart? Even under capitalism, we have labor laws, yet they get ignored all the time in practice. So, is the flaw baked into the system itself, or is it just human nature? Can we actually shape reality through social engineering to any meaningful degree?
Could structural shifts, for instance, actually wipe out corruption? Or look at it this way—we have an independent judiciary, executive branches, and so on, yet it still feels like nothing is truly independent. Is it inevitable that a powerful elite forms—whether under communism or capitalism—an elite that prioritizes its own interests while giving the public just enough scraps to prevent a full-blown revolution?
If changing the structure leads nowhere, should we focus on shifting consciousness instead—maybe through education? Trying to "improve" people? Or does that just lead us straight into another totalitarian trap? Maybe the goal is just getting people to think for themselves. But how do you even do that?
Anyway, those are just some questions I've been chewing on. Feel free to weigh in—I'm not pushing a specific thesis because I honestly don't have the answers. Just keep thinking about it along with me.
lust + energy + entertainment + ideal of abundance = ?
I honestly don't get what people have against sex, having fun, and living large—it makes zero sense to me, let alone turning it into some deep philosophical crisis
I mean, nobody’s talking about any kind of trade-offs here. Just because someone is out enjoying themselves doesn't mean they aren't also hitting the books—maybe reading dense philosophy is actually their version of a good time...
If a person can just go ahead and crush a steak, then an octopus salad, and top it all off with chocolate cake—well, there might be something a little bit off with them, right?😵!
LNP 20 said:Since I'm running low on time, I’ll take a quick, argumentative look at your mention of Judith Butler—she’s a bit of a controversial figure for me.
The way Judith Butler approaches this is actually pretty fascinating. See, culture and language are always playing games with themselves—identities are slippery, and meanings tend to reshape themselves differently for every single person. When you look at gender, you’ve got trans people and folks who blend different identity markers in ways that seem "impossible" by traditional standards, leading to endless possibilities. It basically means that rigid archetype—if you can even call it strict or coherent—which we label as "dominant culture," just slowly dissolves into the noise and gets forgotten. According to Judith Butler, all of this happens constantly, often without anyone even trying to be subversive; the real secret lies in the fact that meaning itself is totally fluid and ever-changing.
someone wrote:... culture—the whole way of life... so far, I guess we’ve basically concluded that fighting against culture is a losing game.
shamanatrixx—I’m not sure if you’re pushing back against one specific culture or just "culture" as the entire framework of how we live our lives?
I mean, there are always countercultures out there—plus, you can always build your own thing if you hate everything else currently on the menu.
...or maybe you're just totally against culture itself (which is a valid "cultural" stance, honestly—there’s been plenty written about that since Rousseau)
then you've got nature on the other side of the coin.
but personally? I don't think there's anything else for a human being.
There’s no such thing as some "authentic" self that exists before language kicks in. Maybe I’m just a product of brainwashing, but it feels like I’m constantly navigating through language—struggling, shedding layers of cultural nonsense, failing to shake off certain parts, and being exactly who I am because of it. Language birthed me and raised me—it's how I conclude, choose, and crave freedom. Not some empty, pre-discursive freedom, but a freedom found within language—one that’s lived-in and played with.
Edward Flores4 said:And before I forget—language plays a massive role in this whole "top-down culture" thing. Media outlets constantly weaponize language to reshape cultural norms. Political correctness is basically just a tool used to shut down debate under the guise of being "polite" or "respectful." It forces culture to push this idea of tolerance for failure and a lack of critical thinking, which ultimately guts our standards and steers everyone away from any thought deemed "socially unacceptable."
I honestly have no clue what you're getting at here—feels like you might be struggling with how to actually define "culture."
Culture includes everything from mainstream pop culture to niche subcultures—it's even what you personally choose to say, write, or create. It’s all part of it. Are we talking about whether someone wants to act like an animal or a rock? That's not really the point, right?
There’s just so much good stuff here—I can’t even pick a favorite. But honestly, "Who by Fire" feels like it’s from some other dimension... totally otherworldly.
mistyfox812 said:Honestly, I’m worried there’s a lot of that stuff from point 2 in the Hegelian Quote.
When you're falling in love—that whole one-on-one vibe—it isn't really about possession. It’s more subtle than that... kind of like being someone's soulmate. That person becomes the most special thing on the planet to you, and you become that for them. Those two pieces are just as vital to love.
Lawrence Robinson5 said:I totally drifted off your specific question a bit—but only because what I'm getting at is tied right into the core of this. See, if we can't even truly know what's best for our own friends or family (since they often choose paths that drive us crazy, even if it's what they need), how can we ever claim to understand the "greater good"? Personal agency should come first. If we respect our own freedom to choose, we have to respect everyone else's too—which basically means tolerance. Maybe the ultimate "good" for society isn't trying to solve some grand equation, but just taking care of our own business and letting everyone else live their lives.
That's actually really deep. It makes you wonder—if you try to force your values on someone else, like telling a kid which college to go to, who are you actually doing a favor for? Is it them, or is it just your own ego?
So, what happens when multiple people are all catching feelings for the same person? You can't just ignore the fact that even in the most beautiful romances, there's bound to be a conflict of interest somewhere. I mean, even two people who are head over heels for each other won't always see eye to eye on what they want. Plus—and this is a big one—the way you view yourself isn't really comparable to how you relate to anyone else, except maybe in those rare, fleeting moments where everything clicks.
Why on earth would something that’s actually good for you be worth any less than what’s "good for the community"—as if we all need to feel this constant pressure to justify our own needs by calling them the common good.🤷
I honestly took this quote as being pretty ironic.
She spends her whole life just patiently waiting in solitude—and the payoff? She's still alone. The quote comes from the novel *The Crucible*, where you follow this woman in her mid-twenties—she’s beautiful, finishing up a PhD in literature—but she just can't catch a break in her love life (like, at all), even though she’s always dreamed of it. Most of the book she's a virgin, then there's this one brief encounter that leads to a child, but after that... nothing, really, until the end of her life.
It's an incredible book, highly recommend.
Though, if we're being real, sometimes you just can't survive without a little hope.
There's also that beautiful song "Hope" by Gabby Novak—it's about that specific kind of hope that grows out of a quiet sense of happiness and that feeling of endless possibilities life occasionally throws your way.
Nothing works quite like religion—it’s basically just an opiate for the masses. It helps you get through the day, I guess. But at the same time, it keeps you too paralyzed to actually step up and do something right now. So you just end up spinning your wheels in circles.