You have main cluster and then offshoots or spectrum. Hanging on too much detail is unproductive.

we should probably throw the term white away because no one can ever agree on a coherent definition

all whites agree

I think it's important to have a general idea where you draw the line between "in" and "related"

the hybrid mutts are always debating

trying to get in

alright show me a map and show me where you draw the line

i have a little rainbow graph and i hold it to their face

jews considered white then?

jews i use a nose measurer

like mengele

there you go. you have to use a different measure to exclude them. therefore its not a coherent premise

Basically Greece is in, most of Russia is in (ignoring minorities), the Caucasus isn't, neither is Cyprus or Malta

white is a subjective opinion for most

@RIP Skelly i use a german shepherd and if it barks like in the terminator i know its a jew

There are objective criteria for whiteness

then how come we are still arguing over whats white

If you're uncomfortable with mixed christians being properly classified then idk

nobody is arguing only half breeds argue

or non-whites who wish they were white

because its a dumb term that only confuses people more

like fareed zakaria

We're arguing because some people want to include clearly mixed populations as definitely white
Cypriots are related to Europeans but not the same

Simple as that

of course half breeds want to be white

they always look for some justification

is the dark blue super white

That map is based on self identification not admixtures

I know the map

are you white larry

Self Identification is valid because like I said white is a subjective opinion

A mulatto calling himself white isn't

It's very imprecise

If he calls himself white, chances are he acts white too

We have DNA tests which are better

In environments like brazil self identification is worth jackshit

You wouldn't consider Ashkenazim white using DNA tests

They're half white

They would pass under self identification though

I still don't understand the sense of this argument. You have clear objective examples of "yes" or "no" and you have those that don't fall under those two simple answers. What is the problem here?

Which is the nonsense we're trying to avoid