Is this a fair border for what is actually white? If you don't think it is don't get butthurt...

>Is this a fair border for what is actually white?
No. The border is Europe. White means "ancestors came from Europe". The more of your ancestors came from Europe, the more White you are. Simple as.

The border I drew is literally a border of people who weren't raped by Asians of Muslims. It's not perfect but it's more or less correct

you're assuming those you consider white what anything to do with you

This is very arbitrary, many Romanians and others from former Yugoslavia are whiter than me, and I am within the border you've drawn. What about Ukraine and the big portion of Russia you left out? And Georgia, don't we call white people "Caucasians"?

That's too vague and open to interpretation. We need a hard, solid definition that critical theorists can't deconstruct. They could debate your line and claim that it's White one village over in this specific area. It's like someone asking you to define where blue ends and green begins - there's no universally agreed upon definition, and bad-faith actors will use this to argue that color is a social construct and doesn't actually exist.

Attached: Stonetoss Rainbow Shirt.png (440x640, 255.26K)

>Cataluña
>white
Catalans are the brownest motherfuckers in the entirity of eurasia and I'm not even joking
Meanwhile galicians are basically visigoths (germans)

Saying that someone is white or non-white is absolutely a social construct, and is meaningless but for excluding someone you don't want into the ranks of what you perceive is the core of your society

I'm terrone and I am of agree

>ryssä subhumans
>white
pick one

Northern Europe isn't white. I mean small Northern part in Scandinavia, all Finland and Northern part of Russia. There are Finno-Ugric people with asiatic ancestry.

You're Asiatic both in looks and in autism

We are 100% white and nordic. The purest Aryan blood flows in my veins

if your countries birthrate is below 2 you are white

>Provence isn't white
Maybe Marseille, but the rest looks quiet white
m.youtube.com/watch?v=m4eW7jFRBnA

>Saying that someone is white or non-white is absolutely a social construct
Yes, but that's a misleading statement. Whiteness is a social construct in the same way that "Blue" is a social construct. You could point to a shade of turquoise aquamarine and say it's blue, and I could disagree and say it's green. Neither of us would be provably, objectively correct. There is no objective, definite point on the color spectrum where blue ends and green begins. Race is the same way. There are scientifically significant genetic differences between someone of Northern European descent and someone of Southern African descent, even if those changes slowly fade into one another with no definite divider line. Race is real and color is real, even if where one ends and another begins is somewhat arbitrary.

>and is meaningless but for excluding someone you don't want into the ranks of what you perceive is the core of your society
It's funny that your types never argue that "Blackness" or "Asianness" is meaningless.

But no, race is meaningful because humans will INEVITABLY sort themselves into different racial categories, then create tension along those lines. Human beings are tribal by nature and we're wired to see race. Numerous evolutionary psychology papers have been written about how in-group altruism and out-group hostility is a winning evolutionary combination. Cavemen who trusted outsiders had their throats slit in the middle of the night by cavemen who only trusted their own tribe. We're literally wired to be racist, and pretending that it's just a social illusion is the height of folly.

Quite*

Fixed

Attached: Untitled-1.png (1250x1091, 1.1M)

I'm terrone and I am of agree too with this

Something like this

Attached: IMG_20220901_110338.jpg (735x642, 159.79K)

>There are scientifically significant genetic differences between someone of Northern European descent and someone of Southern African descent, even if those changes slowly fade into one another with no definite divider line.
Fair enough, can't argue with that
>even if where one ends and another begins is somewhat arbitrary
That's the issue, you never say someone is white or not without any other follow-up meaning or logical consequence, those few magic words carry a punch way above their literal meaning; at the same time, the definition of whiteness is so fluid and ever-changing that it can be accommodated in order to fit the narrative of the dominant group, who can be in need of new components or can reject them instead. Attaching a consequence to something which is so arbitrary like you said is dangerously prone to a divide et impera mentality.
>Numerous evolutionary psychology papers have been written about how in-group altruism and out-group hostility is a winning evolutionary combination.
The mentality of tossing the problems and the risks inherent to our life over an outside group is what brought us to 19th century nationalism and to the World wars, I don't think it's such a winning trait.
>Cavemen who trusted outsiders had their throats slit in the middle of the night by cavemen who only trusted their own tribe. We're literally wired to be racist, and pretending that it's just a social illusion is the height of folly.
I think it's delirious not to notice the fact that we live in an entirely different era with entirely different material conditions, culture and scientific knowledge. Some of our ancestors thought it was honourable and wise to extract and eat the brain of their dead comrades in order to harness their power. Why don't we do that still?