Ethnics glazing hard at white stacy

[Deleted member 13787]

Then what about Europeans with phenotypes that incline more towards ethnic than white? Would they not be considered white? It seems arbitrary to begin with, what confines a white phenotype exactly?

ive never ever seens this. and im being genuine

what confines a white phenotype exactly

caucasoid features and white skin. whats considered white skin is arbitrary but i'd say the woman in OP's post isnt in the grey zone
caucasoid features are hard to define, but features tend to be a three way spectrum in humans:
caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid. this is also loosely based on genetics, ancient history and anthropology.

 

[Deleted member 13787]

imagine being an abused dog of a balkan sucking the dick of a people who once considered you inferior.

proof they considered me inferior?

red + pink + blue = white

retard who thinks r1a is non white. I1 people are swarthy

 

[traveler]

yes she is
looks as white as any western european

legit this is euro white

 

[Alexanderr]

ive never ever seens this. and im being genuine

There are "ethnic" people that are white-passing, it's only logical to assume there are white people that could pass as non-white. The question is does that absolve them from being able to call themselves white?

caucasoid features and white skin. whats considered white skin is arbitrary but i'd say the woman in OP's post isnt in the grey zone
caucasoid features are hard to define, but features tend to be a three way spectrum in humans:
caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid. this is also loosely based on genetics, ancient history and anthropology.

I believe I've mentioned so before but caucasoid features aren't exclusively European. Narrow noses, small-mouth, prominent supraorbital ridges, etc.

These are all found in neighboring regions. Hair colors like blonde or blue eyes are less common and not stereotypical for countries outside Europe. Then again these are also atypical for lots of European countries so these cannot be the criteria to go by.
Even white skin, Europeans have a range of shades with Southern Europeans distinctly darker than Northern Europeans. Some countries outside Europe have lighter shades than certain Europeans.

All this ambiguity merely tells me it's more arbitrary than people would like to believe. Irish people weren't considered white a century ago.

 

[Alexanderr]

legit this is euro white

She doesn't look very different from the stereotypical western European, though there are some little discrepancies that ultimately have a lot of people consider her non-white. Her eyes play a large part.
I would never assume her to be (entirely) ethnically Dutch, French, or Belgian for example. She looks distinctly but concurrently vaguely different.

 

[Deleted member 13787]

There are "ethnic" people that are white-passing, it's only logical to assume there are white people that could pass as non-white. The question is does that absolve them from being able to call themselves white?

if someone is white passing theyre just white, since whiteness is about phenotype.
and same goes for someone who passes as non white. that just means youre not white.
and all these "passing" cases tend to happen on the borders between what you would consider different races. you dont see white passing nigerians

I believe I've mentioned so before but caucasoid features aren't exclusively European. Narrow noses, small-mouth, prominent supraorbital ridges, etc.

indeed. thats why anthropologists one day had to invent "europoid" since so many caucasoids were non white. like ethiopians, somalis, saudis, pakistanis etc

These are all found in neighboring regions. Hair colors like blonde or blue eyes are less common and not stereotypical for countries outside Europe. Then again these are also atypical for lots of European countries so these cannot be the criteria to go by.
Even white skin, Europeans have a range of shades with Southern Europeans distinctly darker than Northern Europeans. Some countries outside Europe have lighter shades than certain Europeans.

like ive already said, you dont have to be european to be white. these features being found outside of europe simply confirms the idea that whites arent exclusive to europe
if white = european, then why call yourself white. youre just european.

All this ambiguity merely tells me it's more arbitrary than people would like to believe. Irish people weren't considered white a century ago.

is it clear cut on where one race ends and another one begins? no.
but are the extremes obvious? yes
think of colors. you have blue and green. in between you have some mixed colors. just because a mixed color can be hard to define, doesnt mean the clear extremes dont exist. what im arguing for is that the woman in OP's post is a clear color and not mixed.

 

[Deleted member 16371]

like ive already said, you dont have to be european to be white. these features being found outside of europe simply confirms the idea that whites arent exclusive to europe
if white = european, then why call yourself white. youre just european

Some Europeans are not white then… I can assure people like this exist

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Some Europeans are not white then… I can assure people like this exist

im interesting in seeing an example

 

[Alexanderr]

if someone is white passing theyre just white, since whiteness is about phenotype.
and same goes for someone who passes as non white. that just means youre not white.
and all these "passing" cases tend to happen on the borders between what you would consider different races. you dont see white passing nigerians

That doesn't seem quite right, to absolve the importance of one's heritage to determine one's ethnicity. If more people consider you non-white than white but your entire family obviously is, spanning back hundreds of years, would you not consider yourself white? Or would you consider yourself a different race?
These white-passing individuals don't merely occur at the border of Europe, some stretch deep into other continents.

is it clear cut on where one race ends and another one begins? no.
but are the extremes obvious? yes
think of colors. you have blue and green. in between you have some mixed colors. just because a mixed color can be hard to define, doesnt mean the clear extremes dont exist. what im arguing for is that the woman in OP's post is a clear color and not mixed.

The term is fundamentally rooted in subjectiveness. It's entirely in the eyes of the beholder where he/she places the confines. There is no consensus. You go by phenotype, which even then leaves much room for interpretation, while others solely look at genotypes and others at both.

Whether the extremes are even obvious is dubious, referring back to the fact that the Irish (in addition to many other European nationalities) weren't considered white merely a century ago. Even though they have all the features considered stereotypically white. Some users on this very forum exclude a huge part of Europe that would be considered white.

As for your analogy, something one would regard as obviously blue the other regards as evidently green. The woman OP posted couldn't be obviously "blue" when there are dozens of people saying that she's evidently not. This must mean her face leaves enough room for interpretation and so does the term.

 

[optimisticzoomer]

Head tilting recessed subhuman (the woman)

 

[Deleted member 13787]

If more people consider you non-white than white but your entire family obviously is, spanning back hundreds of years, would you not consider yourself white? Or would you consider yourself a different race?

this cant happen. two white people cant magically give birth to a brown child

These white-passing individuals don't merely occur at the border of Europe, some stretch deep into other continents.

oh i know. what i meant with borders is countries which tend to have non whites, like syria, lebanon etc.

The term is fundamentally rooted in subjectiveness. It's entirely in the eyes of the beholder where he/she places the confines. There is no consensus. You go by phenotype, which even then leaves much room for interpretation, while others solely look at genotypes and others at both.

phenotype and genes are connected as your phenotype is an expression of genes. white people should have white genes. but white genes are only white because they represent the white phenotype

Whether the extremes are even obvious is dubious, referring back to the fact that the Irish (in addition to many other European nationalities) weren't considered white merely a century ago. Even though they have all the features considered stereotypically white. Some users on this very forum exclude a huge part of Europe that would be considered white.

the irish example is perfect for anyone arguing the woman is non white. People would call someone non white based on a bias against a nationality or ethnicity which is bullshit. race is separate. to call a pale red haired irish person non white is as silly as calling a person with fair skin and blue eyes non white.

As for your analogy, something one would regard as obviously blue the other regards as evidently green. The woman OP posted couldn't be obviously "blue" when there are dozens of people saying that she's evidently not. This must mean her face leaves enough room for interpretation and so does the term.

she is obviously "blue" and even to the people in this very thread. nobody could disprove what i said if you read through all the replies. its evident she has the white phenotype. these people for some reason have this idea that, yes, the color could be clear blue, but its blue in arabia so its not actually blue because most colors in arabia are green therefore its a green country

 

[Alexanderr]

this cant happen. two white people cant magically give birth to a brown child

Yes, they can, especially when the term white isn't so clear-cut. Ethnic parents can give birth to white-looking children, I don't see how the reverse would be impossible.

oh i know. what i meant with borders is countries which tend to have non whites, like syria, lebanon etc.

Yeah, though, most wouldn't consider these white countries.

phenotype and genes are connected as your phenotype is an expression of genes. white people should have white genes. but white genes are only white because they represent the white phenotype

It's determined by genes and environmental factors. To establish whether someone is white or not solely on one's physical attributes invariably means disregarding the importance of genotypes in the equation. Reverting back to what I said earlier, two ethnic parents have a white-passing child. The child may be white-passing but his/her genotype doesn't correspond with that of stereotypical white people.
So here lies a discrepancy, how this discrepancy is amended is up to choice.

the irish example is perfect for anyone arguing the woman is non white. People would call someone non white based on a bias against a nationality or ethnicity which is bullshit. race is separate. to call a pale red haired irish person non white is as silly as calling a person with fair skin and blue eyes non white.

There is no consensus on what makes up a white person or not. This is why people are capable of arguing about the specifics. Some see a swarthy Italian and consider him to be as white as a red-haired ginger. While others refuse to acknowledge anyone with black hair and a tan as white. One considers the other "obviously" white- while the other doesn't.

she is obviously "blue" and even to the people in this very thread. nobody could disprove what i said if you read through all the replies. its evident she has the white phenotype. these people for some reason have this idea that, yes, the color could be clear blue, but its blue in arabia so its not actually blue because most colors in arabia are green therefore its a green country

The white phenotype being a term that is in principle subjective means your verdict is as well. What is there to disprove when the presumptions on which both parties build their conclusions are fundamentally different?
There is no sacred handbook labeling one presupposition as correct/incorrect.

It's quite funny actually how such an important index for identity is substantially in dispute. We presume we understand it as long as we’re not asked to explain it, but it becomes inexplicable as soon as we’re put to the test.

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Yes, they can, especially when the term white isn't so clear-cut. Ethnic parents can give birth to white-looking children, I don't see how the reverse would be impossible.

ive never seen either instance occur. If it were to happen in would indicate intergenerational gene expression (previously non expressed white genes from a grandparent). In which case, this could only ever happen in cases where the race of an individual is highly debatable.

Yeah, though, most wouldn't consider these white countries.

Country populations are not a monolith so whether a country is majority one race doesnt affect the race of any sole individual.

It's determined by genes and environmental factors. To establish whether someone is white or not solely on one's physical attributes invariably means disregarding the importance of genotypes in the equation. Reverting back to what I said earlier, two ethnic parents have a white-passing child. The child may be white-passing but his/her genotype doesn't correspond with that of stereotypical white people.
So here lies a discrepancy, how this discrepancy is amended is up to choice.

This whole racial classification started when the nordic anglo explorers found black people in africa and couldnt ignore that stark contrast between one another. This also happened with East and southeast asian people.
From then on it has been up to debate on where one ends and another one starts
You see, theres a clear reason as to why whiteness is so up for debate. It was never meant to mean what it means today
before, all you had was caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. As far as anthropologists were concerned, they were the same race as north africans and north indians.
At some point they decided that europeans need to have their own subgroup. Since europe is an arbitratrily confined territory, cases emerged in which non europeans would be considered white. Europe is the basis for whiteness, and so far as you pass as an european you can be considered white. It was never about genetics when racial classification began.
Essentially, you have to look as white at least as much as an european does.
i never said it should be clear cut for everyone, just that in the way it was originally seen the woman would be white, as she does pass as european.

There is no consensus on what makes up a white person or not. This is why people are capable of arguing about the specifics. Some see a swarthy Italian and consider him to be as white as a red-haired ginger. While others refuse to acknowledge anyone with black hair and a tan as white. One considers the other "obviously" white- while the other doesn't.

Not in terms of general consensus. Ive never seen anyone in real life think someone is non white just because they have black hair. And as ive said its not how whiteness was created. It was originally invented in order to distinguish between european passing and non european passing caucasoid people.

The white phenotype being a term that is in principle subjective means your verdict is as well. What is there to disprove when the presumptions on which both parties build their conclusions are fundamentally different?
There is no sacred handbook labeling one presupposition as correct/incorrect.

race was invented as a taxonomic classification of phenotypes. Being white means being at least as white as someone within europe as it comes from being specifically europoid as opposed to caucasoid
the common trend with personal beliefs is that it always includes phenotype, thats it. religion, country of origin, etc is all personal but often not part of the definition people have. And the common trend being the same as the base definition means that its the only one that matters ultimately.

It's quite funny actually how such an important index for identity is substantially in dispute. We presume we understand it as long as we’re not asked to explain it, but it becomes inexplicable as soon as we’re put to the test.

you could do the same with anything which doesnt have a clear definition. the definition couldve been simple if we left it at caucasoid/mongoloid/negroid, but having to separate europe, you also had to include in that separate group anyone who looked european but in reality wasnt. Some people started mistakably including non racial factors because of that european basis. The main point here is that people in this thread are arguing for these non racial, mistaken factors.

all im arguing about, is that there is a definition which actually makes sense in the real world, most people tend to believe in it and its the core of any personal definition. Then i explain who it includes and who it doesnt. Personal interpretation, while using my definition is fine.

 

[Alexanderr]

ive never seen either instance occur. If it were to happen in would indicate intergenerational gene expression (previously non expressed white genes from a grandparent). In which case, this could only ever happen in cases where the race of an individual is highly debatable.

What constitutes "white genes"? We're very much falling victim to circular reasoning currently.

theres a clear reason as to why whiteness is so up for debate. It was never meant to mean what it means today
before, all you had was caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. As far as anthropologists were concerned, they were the same race as north africans and north indians.
At some point they decided that europeans need to have their own subgroup. Since europe is an arbitratrily confined territory, cases emerged in which non europeans would be considered white. Europe is the basis for whiteness, and so far as you pass as an european you can be considered white. It was never about genetics when racial classification began.
Essentially, you have to look as white at least as much as an european does.
i never said it should be clear cut for everyone, just that in the way it was originally seen the woman would be white, as she does pass as european.

Disputes in regard to racial classifications are not exclusive to the term white. Race in its entirety is a highly variable concept, plagued with fallacious ideas, and has been throughout history. This is emulated in how much of it remains in dispute.

With respect to the utilization of Europeans as a benchmark. It's idealistic, vague, and frankly faulty. You're begging the question. Whether one passes as European (white) would be entirely up to personal interpretation.

A native of Stockholm looks starkly different than a Sicily native. Europeans are polylithic. Where one draws the boundaries for what should or shouldn't be considered European would then again, be subjective.

You and a couple of others believe she passes as European, meanwhile, another group of people believes she doesn't. Based on that criterion, she would be white by some accounts and non-white by others.

As a taxonomic classification, it would only be rational to account for differences in the European phenotype. More so, when internal variance sometimes varies more than dissimilarity to certain non-Europeans.

the common trend with personal beliefs is that it always includes phenotype, thats it. religion, country of origin, etc is all personal but often not part of the definition people have. And the common trend being the same as the base definition means that its the only one that matters ultimately.

It is the only attribute that one could encounter on day-to-day. One cannot read your genotype by looking at you. Your phenotype is your physical manifestation. It's only sensible people would be inclined to use to it categorize humans. Humans tend to resort to shortcuts.

Yet, it tells us nothing about whether it's correct or not. After all, we do not classify the race of other organisms in the animal kingdom wholly on appearance.

If one wishes to establish any ounce of logic or methodology to racial categorizations one would have to go off more than multiform interpretable physical attributes. Even if it aligns with popular opinion.

But yes, it's the one that holds the most relevance to most people.

all im arguing about, is that there is a definition which actually makes sense in the real world, most people tend to believe in it and its the core of any personal definition.

The amount of sense it makes to base the definition on attributes adjudicated on personal interpretation (thus having differing meanings for everyone) remains questionable to me. Even if it is the one the public is most likely to resort to.

All the more when the infirm classification is unaligned with the one we use to classify every other animal species.
It shows a stark absence of rational methodology to establish the classification that is ultimately omnipresent in the media, politics, and business- with all its associated consequences.

I do note that we've been talking in circles so far, so I'll end my tirade here.

 

[Deleted member 22126]

Such an incel trait to even think about if shes white or arab. Shes hot enough and thats all that matters

 

[Deleted member 23819]

Shows the brutal difference between Levantine and gulf Arabs.

 

[Deleted member 23359]

How is this shit thread got 4 pages
I went to sleep and woke and ethnics still argue is she's white or not jfl

 

[Deleted member 23778]

She looks mixed. Having White features like light eyes doesn't make one White.

People would assume her to be mixed with White and some other ethnic based on her appearance. But they'd assume she was something other than just White is the point

 

[CFW432]

She literally looks persian or could be levantine. But whatever lmao, I know you cumskins cope hard.

Ugly ethnic= MUH REAL ETHNIC

Good looking ethnic= oh no she's wHiTe

 

[Deleted member 17872]

yes she is
looks as white as any western european

U r coping because u look more brown than her
Lol

 

[Deleted member 13787]

U r coping because u look more brown than her
Lol

im not more brown but i have brown eyes

 

[Bojack]

Then she will say this, “sorry i have a boyfriend.”

 

[Deleted member 17578]

All i came to say is that slavs arent white

 

[Deleted member 17872]

im not more brown but i have brown eyes

Brutal

 

[Deleted member 23359]

BUMP

 

[Deleted member 23359]

.

 

[Deleted member 16194]

White means European. That is what the white race is. You are confusing white-passing (meaning, non-Europeans who could pass as European) with white.

Half of Russia is in Asia theyre still white

 

[klip11]

She ramus mogs the whole forum

Except for @Trilogy. No one ramus mogs him

 

[Wallenberg]

That's not a white woman.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Half of Russia is in Asia theyre still white

Russia is still a European country and the part with whites is on western Russia, the part in Europe which is where 90% of Russians live.

Slavs aren’t true whites hence why @cloUder definitoon of cumskin whore is lower than a real white man.

The same way Africans consider mullatos white or Arab upon first glance but American mongrel niggers consider mullatos “black”. Same applies here, mutts will accept anything as their own.

 

[Deleted member 16194]

Russia is still a European country and the part with whites is on western Russia, the part in Europe which is where 90% of Russians live.

Slavs aren’t true whites hence why @cloUder definitoon of cumskin whore is lower than a real white man.

The same way Africans consider mullatos white or Arab upon first glance but American mongrel niggers consider mullatos “black”. Same applies here, mutts will accept anything as their own.

Sounds like a page out of hitlers book
I don’t like nazi racists no wonder you get no pussy

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Slavs aren’t true whites

cope

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

cope

Irony, you Slavs are as white as my left testicle

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Irony, you Slavs are as white as my left testicle

balkanites arent slavs

 

[Deleted member 20652]

He is on Sea men retention

@thereallegend

//Thomas DOM