I thought a douchebag was a person of such such excellent caliber of being (idiotic, irritating, whiny, annoying etc. take your pick) that upon them you awarded the same respect for (and facial expression associated with) a device used to clean vaginas.

I am certainly willing to expand the list of attributes of the "douche bag."  As I previously mentioned, they are legion.  Some other attributes would also be self-absorbed, egomaniacal or suffering from overweening pride.  The douche bag has an array of faces and personalities.

I intend this blog to be the exploration of those many forms.

Unlucky. I only have to deal with a single subset of douchebags: The creationists. However, this subset is quite diverse. There are the:

Dullard creationist: The touted ones who "have a PhD'. While some of them do have PhDs, you would be astonished at the noise that comes out of their mouths sometimes. Especially amusing are the ones which do have "credentials" but in unrelated fields, like the neurosurgeon Michael Egnor.

Dullard lying creationist: Kent-Hovindesque creationists with very suspicious credentials and a criminal tendancy to exploit moronicisms for money and power. Ken Ham would probably fall under this category as well.

Troll creationist: The redneck who is the accidental conception of too many generations of brother-sister intercourse, of whom the parents most likely accidently drove their tractor halfway home with the afterbirth before returning to the hospital to return it for the baby. This thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/10652

Demonstrates such douchebags.

Considering how often Ken Ham uses the argument that the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible and that the Bible must be infallible because it is the word of God and therefore the Bible is telling the truth and the Bible is the word of God...I considered moving him in here too.

Down' Syndrome Creationist: A small subset of the troll creationist. Note that "Down syndrome creationists" is not to imply that this is the only subset of those creationists with genetic cogent deficiency. I believe that all creationists have experienced some tragic in utero mutation making them significantly more retarded.

Perhaps I will begin a categorization of douche bags and develop a system like the one that orders life on Earth.  I will initially reflect on the various Kingdoms of them.  You have, I suspect, just given me a specific set of genus and species.

This will require some organization.  If anyone has any ideas of to what groups are broad enough to be the Kindoms, please let me know.

The Oblivious Douche Bags: A variety that wander through life annoying you but are totally unaware that they are doing so.

The Self-Aware Douche Bags: A variety of douches that are aware they are douche bags and may even take pride or go out of their way to demonstrate exceptional douche bagness.

The Accidental Douche Bags: Douches that are well intentioned but can't help be anything other than douche bags.

The Semi-Douche Bags: Douche Bags that only demonstrate Douche Bag attributes part time. 

I think those four ought to be a good start to list kingdoms of douche bags. 

Well, if you can dichotomize douchebags into two very broad groups such as Moronic and Irritating, then we have the two Empires, which is the largest taxonomical subset

Then, if we can split into three or more specific terms, we have our domains. Under Moronic, we can have the domains of the idiots and the retards (idiots do not necessarily have the inability to think, but are just think idiotic things, whereas retards are those who lack any sense whatsoever, and do not think nor listen to what comes out of their mouths) Under Irritating, we can have the domains of Whiny and Never-Shuts-The-Hell-Up

Which we then divide into Kingdoms where under Whiny, we would have the Kingdom of the elderly, and the Kingdom of the Politically correct

Under Moronic, we could have the Kingdom of Conspiracy theorists and the Kingdom of Internet Theists who do not belong in the Kingdom of Conspiracy Theorists

Under retarded we could have the Kingdom of New Age Beliefs

Under Never-Shuts-The-Hell-Up, we could have the Kingdom of the moderately deranged

Under the Kindgom of the Elderly, we could have the Phyla of the senile, and the cranky

Under the Kingdom of Conspiracy Theorists, we have the Phyla associated with religious conspiracy theorists, and those of political

Under the Kingdom of New Age beliefs, we could have the phyla of those who believe it, and those who sell it

Under the Kingdom of Internet theists- we could have the phyla of trolls and the simple.

Under the Kingdom of moderately deranged, we have the phyla of missionaries, and Radio talk-show hosts 

Under the Phyla of senile, we could have the class of those in nursing homes, and those not.

Under the phyla of cranky- we could have those with

Under the phyla of religious conspiracy theorists, we could have the class of apoclyptic, etc

These are just ideas I am bouncing off. 

After class we still need to fill in Order, Family, Genus, Species 

This is going to become more complicated than I had originally imagined.  I will spend some of today reflecting on how best to organize this effort.  I think that the initial division must be in terms of Sane and Insane.  Hmmm.  I guess we could categorize every douche bag on the planet. 

This goes to show that you never know where a rant will lead.

What happens if a sane douche bag becomes insane?

I think that the douchebag may very well evolve as Lamark suggested.  We should have a structured system before we start worrying about its inner workings.  Rest assured that I will spend all day at the office tomorrow workin gon this problem.  lol

[Jersey accent on] You guys are acting like total douchebags. [Jersey accent off] 

Only 12?  Wow, Nero, you're lucky.  I'm consistently running into douchebags.  And twatwaffles.  And cum dumpsters.  At any given moment during the week I will end up next to some fat man on the train who farts and snores the entire way to the station.  Or some snotty lady who uses nail polish remover and glares at me as I gasp and wheeze and reach for my inhaler.  Or the homeless guy who told me I was rude because I wouldn't give him change (well, I asked him if he worked for it and he said no so I told him to piss off, but still).  Definitely a douchbag, that one.  lol. 

just to play devil's advocate (re: your original post), and I understand that this isn't necessarily the goal of your post, but nevertheless:

Have you thought that what your ex was saying may have actually had some truth behind it? I have no idea what was said nor the veracity of it all, granted. I have known some women, my wife for example, who foolishly followed their boyfriend-at-the-time along to college (or whereever) which resulted in a string of bad decisions. 

Now, before you start tuning me out, I am not saying that she (my wife or your ex) are totally absolved of responsibility in this -- we're all responsible for our own actions; But it's important to recognize our own roles in how we impact other people. It's part of being a moral individual sans-religion. The overall tone of your post really suggests an almost sociopathological  disregard for fellow human beings.

I fully agree that there are some people that irk us merely by existing, and that there are indeed people that fit your definition of "douchebag" to a T; But I think there's a significant difference between "douche bags that roam the earth" and "douche bags that we have affected" with respect to personal accountability. 

 So maybe your ex was just totally off her rocker and you really did have absolutely nothing to do with where her poor decisions have led her; then disregard this and take it with my apologies. But on the (somewhat likely, since you dated her) off-chance that you did have some effect on her life, isn't it important to accept responsibility and move on?

Strick09,

Thank you for participating in my categorization of douchebags.  You are absolutely correct.  People who give advice that is not sought after and people who infer too much about a story told are both excellent categories of douchebags.  I will be certain to add them to the list.