YZZAJ @Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club

@amerika shit fuck I'm all over the place I give up I think you get the idea though, I'm too drunk

@amerika obviously I mean any person not exhibiting non-white traits, would be colloquially called white

@amerika What percentage do I think this random cropping up of traits occurs, or what percentage of admixture do I think is required for such traits to crop up (at a rate I do not know)? It doesn't matter to me if traits pop up or not, the presence of the genetic code is the trait in and of itself, it is all that is required to make someone non-white, I'm using that term scientifically, since colloquially any person not exhibiting non-white traits would be called non-white, while those who did not exibit such traits but had "corrupted" DNA, would still be called white. And so, many, many "white" people are non-white, scientifically speaking, as many "Asian" people are non-asian, due to african or white genetic code, and as many africans because of their dna being mixed with non-africans.

@amerika Yes, I agree

@amerika Admixture is a broad concept, all human beings share genetic code, because all beings share genetic code. The difference between a black and a white is a spectrum, this is why a person with 1% black DNA looks white, just like how a blob of white paint with a miniscule dot of black mixed in will still look white, it is only in the details that it is not, and the details only apply in scientific matters, the majority of human life is not a scientific matter in my opinion, since science is an art applied in precise constraints, and that does not mirror normal life, scientific matters are much more taxing than normal life because of the focus required. And so I would see no problem calling someone with 1% black dna, and 99% white dna, white, even though it would be a euphemism, because in truth they would be mixed.

@amerika A white mixed with black, or "yellow"(I omit "red" because american indians are a type of asian), is not white, or black, or yellow, that doesn't mean they're any better or worse inherently as people.

@amerika Yes, I consider them white, I also base whiteness more on body structure than on skin color. So a very dark Indian is more white to my eye than a lighter skinned person with more "afican" features.

@amerika I consider Irish white, they are a type of white, and there are many types of whites.

@Kagekokoro @mario I don't see what that matters

@Kagekokoro @mario How would I know they were a cop if they were not in customary dress or told me they were? Same as a Muslim or Christian. Stopped reading after that tbh because you're being stupid.

@nagitoekogaeda hi

@cmboo_@pawoo.net 💐❤️

@BrutoMcrugen Hang in there fren

Then of course there's the obvious joke of he didn't do much standing at all after a point.

Larry Flynt was a hero of mine even though he was a disgusting pervert who preyed on self destructive people for his own enrichment. Just for that one thing, standing up when it was his right to stand up, and not sitting down when it wasn't their right to tell him to sit the fuck down.

I forget people don't actually know me or my values and I have to keep stating them. I adhere to the nonaggression principle. I believe in consent, and nonverbal consent (sign language, writing, etc.). I believe in an individuals right to freedom, that means the right to not be indoctrinated or brainwashed against your will. I believe in the right to self defense, and the right to give aid. I believe in the right to free association, and the right to privacy. These are some of the important factors in my decision making.

@mario @fluffy It troubles me that people are not as literal as I am, and are not as generous with their interpretations, but you're not lying.

@meidocafe Weapon type: Blunt

My disgust response is one of avoidance, not destruction. When I am disgusted by someone I seek to avoid them, not destroy them. This is "live and let live". My fear response is defensive though, strongly.