Science, Social Justice, and Sex

Wow, it took me much longer to actually sit down and type than I thought it would have. My last post was almost three months ago; I'm really letting things slip. This is not a good sign for my future in higher education.

Desperate, the me of the future takes the only choice he has:
become a stock image model.

But here I am, ready to go! As I said almost three months ago, my next post would be the gays, gay marriage, and the Catholic church. It won't, mostly because I've forgotten all the points that made me so angry that day (I should really learn to write notes), but also because I have faintly touched upon the subject before and because there are a crap ton of other posts and sources on the issue already. No, today, we're going to talk about something I feel is underrepresented in the Internet Hate Machine: science and social justice.

My rage was first flicked into life when I stumbled upon a character profile for a tabletop game called Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, the developers have made characters (referred to as "iconics") that really serve no purpose, in my opinion, but they exist nonetheless. The profile is one on a transsexual dwarf shaman.

But that's not even why I'm angry. I have nothing against transsexuals, dwarves, or shamans. (Although I did have a discussion on this topic somehow else, to which someone replied "'I have nothing against ____ but I clearly discriminate against ____.'" For the record, I have never said anything bad about dwarves.)

Elves on the other hand....

No, what really made me angry is the highlighted quote in the following picture:

I actually had an aneurysm reading this. 

That was a comment by the writer of the character profile simultaneously clarifying some details for other readers and proving that she knows shit all about biology. Earlier I mentioned that this would be a post about science and social justice. Science because clearly we're talking about biology. Social justice because, based on the content of the comment (making a point of using the word "gender" and picking out that "her parents raised her assuming she was [a boy]"; all points someone involved with gender politics would make). I hesitate to toss around the label of SJW because it not only makes me sounds like I'm tossing around buzzwords, but also because my anger isn't, admittedly, because of some widespread movement to replace science with something less objective.

However!

That one quote- "'Biologically male' is actually a fairly wibbly-wobbly descriptor, once you studied enough biology[...]" - just makes me want to generalize everyone sympathetic towards the gender politics movement and hate them.

The sad kind of hate too. 

I won't, because it's really not fair to generalize a population based on a few idiots, but a quick Google searched confirmed my worst fears: there are people who think science is subjective.

This is only remotely related, but I liked the diagram.

Specifically, I'm talking about the science of sex. Not the act, either. No, this is the boring kind, about chromosomes and all that. Let's take a look, shall we? Here's an article claiming that biological sex is a transmysogynistic idea (really, I could do a whole post on the silliness of this piece and how it all just reads like a buzzword buffet) and here's a forum post claiming that biological sex simply isn't the way nature works. Both are just ridiculous and support that idea that sex is a social construct - some sort of obscure grey area that isn't easily defined.

To pick a quote from the first article: "Since 'biological sex' is actually a social construct, those who say that it is not often have to argue about what it entails."

Yes, apparently "biological sex" is a social construct (H O W?) and that sex should be a choice a person should make. Only that notion makes no sense, because chromosomes, primary sexual characteristics, and secondary sexual characteristics (all in order of greatest importance when determining sex) exist. Let's break down what some of these words mean.

• Social construct - a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice. 
• A sexual dichotomy does not exist in nature, because lions, tigers, monitor lizards, sea horses, moray eels, pelicans, dogs, Galapagos tortoises, Madagascan hissing cockroaches, or countless other non-sapient animals do not show evidence to the contrary
• Chromosomes - any of several threadlike bodies, consisting of chromatin, that carry the genes in a linear order: the human species has 23 pairs, designated 1 to 22 in order of decreasing size and X and Y for the female and male sex chromosomes respectively.
• Females typically have an XX configuration while males have an XY configuration
• Seems pretty solid to me
• Primary sexual characteristics - any of the body structures directly concerned in reproduction, as the testes, ovaries, and external genitalia.
• Males have testes and a penis, females have ovaries and a vagina.
• Secondary sexual characteristics - any of a number of manifestations, as development of breasts or beard, muscularity, distribution of fat tissue, and change of pitch in voice, specific to each sex and incipient at puberty but not essential to reproduction.
• These are the weakest indicators, but they are indicators nonetheless. 

Both sources I linked before make a point of saying that more than one sex chromosome configuration exists, which is true, but as my friends at the Genetic Science Learning Center at the university of Utah have informed me, individuals with a Y chromosome are genetic males. Funny enough, that's a definitive statement, not a wibbly-wobbly descriptor, and I'd wager that those people have studied enough biology. Note that I said genetic male. Not "boy" or "dude" or "broseph". Male. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with gender, or any soft science like sociology or psychology. The closest thing that could be evidence against a sexual dichotomy are the existence of intersex individuals, whom could have odd chromosomal patterns (XXY, XXXY, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, any other conditions on a quite expansive list) or ambiguous genitals (primary sexual characteristics). There is nothing subjective about it. Nothing wibbly-wobbly. Science is not performed by fucking weeble wobbles.

Pictured: not scientists

I don't care if you're sympathetic or asympathetic to the gender politics movement. If you're going to use science as a source, use it correctly. Don't be some post-modernist fuckwit and pretend objectivity is subjective. It's disgusting at best and outright lying at worst.

Come Back?

It's been a long while since I actually posted anything - way back when the Ferguson riots were still a thing, apparently. No, that last post full of code doesn't actually count, that's for something else entirely and I just needed a place to host the code.

So, yea, still getting page views somehow, which is neat. Haven't had a whole lot to write about.

Until tonight happened.

And let me tell you, it already feels like it's going to be one helluva rant. All about the gays, their marriage, the Catholic church, and all the implications thereof. If you're reading this, somehow, just be prepared for that.

No h8, or something like that?

Also my friend Katie has a blog that you should check out. I was actually forced to leave the site because I was, as the dictionary described it, a "hater" and they aren't allowed, apparently. Sounds like she's the hater, but that's neither here nor there.

Don't know when it's getting done, but it'll get done. Strap in and wait until then.

Running Vote

<div style="border: 3px dotted red;  padding: 4px;" align=center >
<h3 >Please Vote For
</h3>

<div align="center">
<a href="http://birkenstocks.sandals4less.com/blog/vote1000.php?s4lid=1&siteid=<? echo $id ?>"><img src="/1000.jpg"/ border=0></a>
</div>

<b><img src="http://birkenstocks.sandals4less.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/contest_pic1000.png" alt="birkenstocks.sandals4less.com">
<br>

 would love to win the&nbsp;$1,000<strong> <u><a href="http://birkenstocks.sandals4less.com/blog/scholarship/">Scholarship Contest</a></u></strong>,  so if you've enjoyed the story, please vote  for , by clicking on the crest below.

</p>
<br>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="468" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<tr>
        <td align=center colspan="2"><a href="http://birkenstocks.sandals4less.com/blog/vote1000.php?s4lid=1&siteid=35"><img src="/1000.jpg" alt="birkenstocks.sandals4less.com Nominee - Nominate this website for a NAME-OF-CONTEST Award from birkenstocks.sandals4less.com" hspace="0" vspace="0" border="0"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr align="center">
        <td><span style="FONT-SIZE:9px;COLOR:#000000;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">SPONSORED BY</span> birkenstocks.sandals4less.com<br/>        <? include 'http://birkenstocks.sandals4less.com/blog/entered31.php';?></td>
        </td>
</tr>
</table>



</div>

It's Because of Race or Something

Ferguson. I'm sure we've all heard about it recently: on the news, from our friends, whilst eavesdropping on that antisemitic guy a few cubicles over. The point is we've all heard it, and we're all angry.

Unless you're like me and don't really know where Ferguson is.

It's right there, on the chef's nipple.

With that now out of the way, we can be angry. But about what? I don't know about you guys, but I'm just picking up on everyone's latent anger and allowing myself to succumb to the herd. Mmm, Hivemind, you feel so good. Makin' thinkin' so simple and easy.

What's happened 

Thankfully, Wikipedia already has a page devoted to just this subject, so my job is easier. I'll just give a quick rundown so we're all on the same page.

• Ferguson, Missouri, August 9th
• Black guy, Michael Brown, is alive
• Cop, Darren Wilson, also alive
• Guy and cop begin arguing over something stupid (walking down the middle of the street)
• RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
• Gun discharged, guy runs
• Cop pops a cap in guy. Then does it five more times.
• Everyone else learns about it.
• RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
• People believe Brown was actually surrendering and cop still popped caps
• I don't know what happened since I wasn't there (thankfully?)
• Lots of riots everywhere, thank you Hivemind
• Race gets mixed into it because of course it does
• Cops v Everyone else
• It's like Mortal Kombat in Ferguson
• Tear gas, SWAT gear, looting (why are we looting, exactly?)
• Things calm down a little
• Pretty much everyone forgets (or at least I did)
• Cop goes before Grand Jury
• Justice, right?
• lolno
• Grand Jury doesn't indict
• People mad, riots break out again
• Because the justice system isn't justice enough? I'm not actually sure. And this is the part where I get to toss my opinion around

Opinions, WOO

There are two problems I have with the recent riots.

Race is still an issue.

That single sentence produced 1.21 jiggawatts of privilege.

And that the prescribed justice apparently isn't justice-y enough.

I don't understand it, but I'm angry anyway

I've made sure to polish and reinforce my angry-word armor, so if you simply must share with me your thoughts on the above matter, then go for it. Little ol' Kyle may be a beautiful flower, but you won't be his first thunderstorm. 

Race Baiting

I want to be surprised that race is still an issue. I want to, but I'm not. Look, maybe the cop did shoot the guy because he was black; I don't know. Yes, statistically, blacks aren't held as equals to whites (or other races, since other races are less equal). But that's not my point.

My point is that race is still the headlining issue in this.

It's that race, before everything else, seems to be the sole reason for the riots, protests, angry words, etc. Maybe as a white dude, I just can't understand anything because my privilege glasses tint everything to look more white dude-ish. Or maybe, just maybe, this isn't a race issue. No, at heart, to me, this transcends racial lines. It's a blackness so black that neither Al Sharpton nor Jesse Jackson will get mad at me for calling it black: corruption.

DAMN YOU, CHAOS

Yes, my friends, this shooting only shows the corruption in the police force that we've all known about. It's a recent (or maybe not so recent) fling down Brutality Lane that everyone, regardless of color, has been experiencing. 

White folk.

Brown folk.

Black folk.

Hell, even rainbow folk if you count Russia.

The protesters and rioters had a beautiful, beautiful chance to unify the entire country against a corrupt police force. After all, everyone loves to stick it to The Man, and when The Man thinks he's big and tough, it just makes toppling and subsequently tea bagging him all the more fun. You know who really doesn't like brutal police taking their property for arbitrary reasons?

These guys. 

Don't get it? Check out their version of funny maymays:

No caption could distract you from how scarily well-armed these guys are.

In case the above image makes it seem like they're bad people or something, they aren't. They're dudes and chicks who really like the Constitution and the part that lets them own all those cool ass firearms. And from my observations and interactions, most of them are white.

"But Kyle!" The SJW inside you leaps to the keyboard to begin typing your counter-thesis, "White people can't understand! And guns are scary! And also peaceful protests!"

To address your well-thought concerns in order: 1) Well damn, I guess alienating members of the social majority is a good idea. 2) Only if you don't know how to use them (like the police, who... nobody actually knows how many people cops kill with firearms). And 3) Peaceful my ass.

I'm not advocating bringing more force to level with the police or powers-that-be; that'd only continue this perpetuating cycle of angry buttfuckery. But words are much more persuasive when you have force to back it, and 3%'ers provide that force, because that is their God given right. 

AMEN!

That's just one group of whiteys. Going out on a limb, I'm willing to bet most whiteys don't like a brutal, arbitrary group of power roving the streets like a pack of wild dogs, out to destroy people not wearing their colors.

I just described a street gang. It's that bad.

There are, of course, people of every other color living in 'Murrica. So why focus only on blacks and their plight? Why continue this shooting as just a problem for blacks when it should be a problem for everybody?! Maybe I can't understand because I'm white, but holy hell, can't we be the single human race instead of whatever-color-your-skin-is-race?

God bless this woman.

But there's more!

Unfair justice is bad justice. Fair justice is good justice. Unless you don't think the fair justice was good justice, in which case, it's bad justice.

To quote a certain me:

And 3) Peaceful my ass.

People are going around all a-lootin' and a-pliagin' like they're some goddamn vikings and the world is their British coast. Why?

Why?

Why?

How does that help anything?! It's a Hitler logic of "if we commit crime to erase crime, we didn't commit crime!" Alright, maybe that's just an exaggeration that I needed to meet my Hitler quota for the day, but that's not the point. Committing acts of crime and violence, especially against innocent people, solves Dimma-damn all.

Pictured: looters

That's not even all of it, though. Yesterday, November 24, Darren Wilson went before a Grand Jury to face his charges. Grand juries are like if juries stopped being little pussies and started to mainline anabolic steroids. Or something to that effect. Either way, these are the guys that got a final say in whether Mr. 5-0 up there went away for a long time. Their decision?

He wasn't indicted of his charges, meaning that they found a probable cause for the defendant's (Wilson) actions.

That is not to say he didn't shoot Brown. He most certainly did. But the Grand Jury decided that his reasons, the evidence, testimonies, and so on were good enough to not convict him of the crimes. Justice, right? We might not like the decision, but the legal systems we choose to vest ourselves in made the decision and we sorta have to respect those decisions, even if we don't like them.

Maybe there's corruption in the legal system too? I don't know. But the point to a court hearing isn't to make you feel better, or to make judgments based on "Well, I think..." but to make a judgement based upon the letter of the law. I'm not a fancy pants legal man, but if the jurors didn't find the evidence compelling enough to indict him, I pretty much have to respect their decision. He can't be tried again for the charges, so unless new ones materialize (something police are actually pretty good at) he can't be tried again.

But breaking laws does not fix other ones. It's like with the Zimmerman trial. Florida has some fucked up laws - hell, it's a trope - but breaking into stores to steal televisions doesn't help to ammend or fix said fucked up laws.

I fear for us.

This will ruffle some feathers, I'm sure, and by all means, if you feel compelled to do so, then tell me off. But have some sound backing to it, otherwise you just look like an angry Muppet who learned to type.

Dear Mr. Feurerstein... allow me to explain why you're a twatwaffle

Woo, it's been quite a long while since I've had the pleasures of sitting down and getting to write something. Thankfully, just as I was remembering how to English, a mister Joshua Feurerstein went viral with his video "Dear Mr. Atheist ... allow me to destroy evolution in 3 minutes!"

The only problem is that, like most unscientific plebs, he doesn't understand a lick of what he's talking about.

Now, there are already tons of videos and blog posts and what have you out and about that smack down this guy's argument like Randy Savage snaps into a Slim Jim. But everyone else isn't Kyle, and Kyle just likes to throw his opinions around as if they were going out of style (they were never in style, mind you).

So, without further adieu: Dear Mr Feurerstein...

You are, without a doubt, part of what the problem is in this world. And no, I don't mean "religion is the root of all evil" problem. I mean the "willing propagation of misinformation, inability to perform proper research, and willful ignorance" problem. While I've already gone to lengths to call you a twatwaffle, I feel that I could come up with much better insults while effectively countering your entire argument.

And that's just to sum up the video; go on and check out the link to it above. You'll find people rallying around him, caps-locking their way into digital Heaven, and using their own holy book as proof for their holy book. While I'm not going to try to denounce any religion (that'll be when I've ascended into my own godhood), it just amazes me that the proof for their claim is their claim. And that's not even all that's in the video! This guy goes on to denounce evolution, talk about the etymology of the word "universe" and whatever. Let's take it step by step, shall we?

Case 1: Mistaking that anyone believes evolution is what created the universe

The video opens up with der Feuerstein claiming an atheist called him a moron for believing in God and that God made everything whereas the atheist "believed in something he called the science of evolution." That italics is there because der Feuerstein spread some extra sass butter all over that linguistic bread. I'm not too sure if Atheist v Feuerstein actually happen, but let's assume that it did.

Based just on this introduction, it's clear that Mr. Feurerstein thinks that evolution, as used by the atheist, is something used to describe how the secular world believes everything came into existence. It's not. While the secular idea of the Big Bang (more properly referred to as "inflation theory") -- which has recently come into a pretty neat piece of evidence that essentially proves it happened -- is the theory for the universe's existence, evolution isn't.

This might just me being nit picky, but the problems don't stop there.

Case 2: "Evolution is not a science, never has, and never will be[...]"

Holy gravy balls, readers. I can't even begin to understand how the hell he came up with this idea. 

Even the people who perform magic don't get it.

He continues: "It cannot fit within the parameters, the parenthesis of science for one simple reason: it was never observed."

Alright, I suppose he's technically correct. Evolution has never been directly observed. Except for the pat where it kinda has. Want an even closer-to-home example of evolution? Influenza. Every single year, a new flu vaccine has to be created and distributed because the virus is constantly evolving.

Add to that the following evidence (source)

• The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
• The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. 
• Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
•  Common traits in embryos.  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. 
• Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.

"But Kyle," you begin to object, "I've never actually seen these things develop before my eyes. How can I know they're true?" Glad you asked. Here's this super cool video (catchy music free of charge) showing the transitional species throughout the ages: 

Got it? Good. Back to Mr. Feurerstein. He describes evolution as "one man's theory". Most scientist accept it as true.

Der Feuerstein says it takes faith to believe in evolution. I suppose it does, but tons of evidence cushion my faith so well, it's like I'm sleeping on a bed of scientific facts. Back to my man:

"You want me to believe that in some accidental cosmic bang, that out of that was created one cell, and that from one cell, all life springs?" No, because life didn't form instantaneously. In fact, the Earth didn't form until 9.1 billion years or so until after the Big Bang. Life didn't start until much later. Of course, it's hard to get straight numbers on that, since almost nobody is in agreement on just when proto-life began to form. 

"Somewhere[...] we mysteriously and magically developed different wills and we all developed different characteristics, all because we willed it in our h-"

Hold the fucking phone.

Karate action grip, GO!

How can a creationist denounce anything as "mysterious" and "magical"?! They literally believe in a God that created everything as is in seven days from nothing. That sounds pretty mysterious and magical to me. Oh, and evolution isn't magical; it's a process that naturally selects traits that'd be beneficial to an organism in a specific environment. Survival of the fittest, as they say. And no, I'm not going to explain how each and every organism is best suited to their environment. That'd take an enormous amount of time that I just don't have.

Nor was evolution as conscious process. It's called "natural selection" not "artificial selection". The difference between the two is that the former is something based on the relationships between the organism and the environment, while the latter is something a sapient organism performs on another organism. So while artificial selection is a "willed" process (and something that couldn't have come about until humans came into existence; aliens notwithstanding), natural selection is just something that happens as organisms attempt to survive. Simple as that.

Case 3: Still asserting that evolution isn't a science

Wrong. Again.

Case 4: The Second Law of Thermodynamics

"Chaos can never produce order," as the Famous Feurerstein doth spake. What I'm assuming he means is that "energy is randomly lost in a system due to entropy". While he never actually makes any point on the Second Law, I'm still going to talk about how he's wrong for using it and idiotic if he thinks it applies.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often used by creationists in order to assert that evolution requires energy, and tons of energy would be lost if organisms started as single cells and evolved into complex entities like ourselves. To which I respond as such 

Thank God that giant nuclear reactor in space exists, what with it's whole "pumping energy into our planet" and whatnot.

He also points out how gravity makes object orbit each other. I'm not sure how this disproves evolution though.

Case 6: Because it's ordered, it must come from something to do the ordering

Der Feurerstein uses an example of a tornado going through a junk yard and making a shiny, new Lamborghini on the other side. While this makes no sense in its own right, there are just two problems with this assertion

1. The probability of life forming is incredibly tiny. This is true. Unfortunately for brochacho there, the universe is so freakin' huge that it almost definitely had to happen, and has probably happened multiple times.
2. Evolution isn't about "taking parts and making new, unrelated parts". Each step is related to the previous one in some way (for lack of a better way to describe it). A fish does evolve into a mouse. 

This point link back to the previous one about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Again, Mr. Feurerstein doesn't understand that, after the Big Bang, gravity would have attracted particles together, and after lots and lots and loooooooooots of time, created what we see today. Order was instantaneous (and still isn't). Chaos just got a little prettier.

Case 7: Etymology

In the previous two points, der Feurerstein cited the existence of hours as proof of a God that created order. He, of course, ignores how those hours are only dependent on how long it takes a planet to rotate and how humans have themselves set just what an "hour" is. 

But the best part, the topping to this delicious cake of stupid, is the word "universe".

Yes, he cites the word "universe" as proof of a God. A word. He cites a fucking English word as proof of a higher power.

Since "uni" means "one" in Latin and "verse" means "a spoken statement" that obviously equates to God having spoken everything into existence. Since English is a white man's language, I can only assume that God intended the white man to reign supreme.

And science uses the word "universe" to name the "universe". Take that, atheists!

White Power 2: More Whiter

White History Month. It's a thing brought up every February (i.e. Black History Month) by white people who question why they themselves don't have a special month.

By the technicalities of this thing we call "equality" we should all have a history month.

"But Kyle, that's socialist!" Shut up, Generic Republican 1. You like throwing that term around almost as much as you like throwing your nuclear-fueled dicks of death around.

"Coming" for you.

As I was saying, in a completely equal society, I'd think there'd be a White History Month. Or at the least the chance to have a White History Month. Ya know, we try it one year and if it doesn't work, we drop the idea. Something like that, right?

My bullshit meter is going off.
I know that joke doesn't make much sense, I just wanted to use it.

You best check your privilege now because I'm about to drop some heavy stuff on you.

As my man TayTay(she's a female by the way. What, females can't be men? Check your privilege.) has pointed out to me numerous times, including just now, before:

Yes, I used pink. I like the color.

So that's what this "equality" thing boils down to; either we give everyone a month (something that's highly improbable) or give give no one a month (much easier!). Now, I'm sure someone is going to bitch about it, but everyone has to make sacrifices, right? Right. Let's get on with the rest of this thing, shall we?

In my humble, but correct, opinion, there doesn't need to be a white history month.

"But Kyle," you as Angry White Hipster 1 (who's actually learned to work with Generic Republican 1; aren't I magical like that?) begin to angrily text on your white iPhone, "if blacks and Mexicans have their own months, why can't white people?" To which I say you, sir and/or madam, need to look a little more closely at history because...

We

Run

This

Bitch.

And here's a few other people to boot.

Also this guy, but he's just really cool.

Don't you get it, white people?

Every other month is white history month. 

You may not be conscience of it, but most history taught today (or at least in 'Murrica) is white history - for white people, by white people. Now now, I know you're getting ready to contradict me, but let's just cover some things that our history books commonly cover:

• The presidents; the first 43 are white, the 44th is half white.
• The Indians were here. They actually weren't white. But white people did take the land.
• Blacks were enslaved by whites. See the point above.
• During the second industrial revolution, pretty much everyone who got rich was white. (People like J.P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie.)
• White people usually created the important inventions (electricity, the telephone, ore refining processes, anything to do with the arts) while other races are more or less nodded at.
• The Enlightenment Period, the teaching of which tends to ignore any eastern teachings.
• How the east pretty much had more advanced technology for a good portion of time.
• And probably a few more I can't think of.

Think fast: why are there any other history months any way?

Because the white man said there could be. True, things like black history week and even the early idea we know as black history month were all initiated by blacks, but it was a white guy who had the final say. Sure, that might just be me fabricating details to make a point (when isn't it?) but it sounds a lot more menacing, doesn't it?

Not only that, but white people pretty much conquered the world. Can't we handle a little flak, white folks, for the kind of accomplishment? I mean, it may not something to be entirely proud of, but it's still there. If black people can take pride in a woman who created hair-care products, why can't I be proud of my race ruling everything?

Wow. I sound like an old racist now.

"We're proud of you, Kyle!"

You aren't special and don't have a mental disorder.

You know what really grinds my gears?

A giant shredder?

Close, but no. (That's actually just really awesome.) No, it's the people who claim they "have OCD [sic]."

"But Kyle," you're already trying to justify your stupidity, "I really do have OCD. I can't stand it when people leave little marks on a chalkboard."

Hold the fuck up right there. That's not even close to what an obsessive compulsive disorder is. But you know, I'll give you the shadow of a doubt; I'll just think you haven't had the proper education to fully understand just what it means to have obsessive compulsive disorder. Now come, let Kyle teach you the ways of not being stupid.

If this bothers you at all, then I'm not even going to bother because
you're beyond hope.

In my personal experience, definitions are always the best places to start. For this, I'll quote the glory that is Wikipedia:

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear, or worry;

"BUTKYLEBUTKYLEBUTKYLE," Jesus Christ. Don't even start... "Seeing unerased marks on a chalkboard and not having every gumball of the same color in the same spot does make me uneasy and cause me to fear and worry!" No, you're just a twit who doesn't know how to act rationally. And you see that semicolon? Right there, at the end of the quote? That, for you uncultured swine (I don't know why I say that, considering the semicolon is pretty much a dying piece of punctuation), means there is more to the quote. Shall we continue?

by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety; or by a combination of such obsessions and compulsions.

Wait... You hear that?

"But Kyyyyllllleeeee," Dammit.

"I dooooooo repeat behaviors like hyperventilate and act pretentious and make a big deal out of literally nothing."

Like I said, you're just a twit.

You see, people who actually have the disorder do such things as:

• Excessively wash (a common examples is washing the hands an exact number of times)
• Repeatedly checking on things
• Extreme hoarding (not to be confused with A&E's new reality contest show "Xtreme Hoarders"
• Sex (a lot)
• Avert to numbers (Revelation be damned!)
• And consistently perform nervous rituals

 I'm just going to go out on a limb -- just ball-parking here -- and say that you don't even come close to manifesting any of those symptoms. No, don't even try to say the first one applies because you take a shower everyday or the second because you don't want your baby to be smothered by the cat. No, Mr. Hot Shit, just because you claim to have tons and tons of sex doesn't mean you have an OCD. (Unless being full of shit, like your name suggests, is one of the symptoms and I just missed it.) Again, you're all twits for even thinking this.

And you know what's the saddest part of all? People seem to embrace this; they actively express that they "have OCD [sic]" and then laugh about it like they're having a fit of ganja-induced giggle fit. 

And then this happens.

Still think you're obsessive compulsive? Well, if you are/happen to be professionally diagnosed, then this entire rant really didn't apply to you and I hope all of the idiots in the world learn to stop being idiots (not sure how that would actually happen. If you aren't diagnosed, don't do any repetitive actions based on illogical fears, and think you're obsessive compulsive, then I'm sorry, but you're a complete idiot and I hope this entire rant hurt your feelings.

I'm not saying mental disorders can't be funny -- everything can be funny -- just that it's stupid when you think you have a disorder without knowing anything about anything.