I'll reserch for cullers then i'll decide
I won't make my website dark

You can't be a frontend developer professionally.  It doesn't matter how much CSS you know. No one is going to give you a full-time sighted assistant to help check your styling to make sure it's accurate and working on all the major browsers.  You either have enough vision that you don't need to ask this question, or you don't do frontend development, and there is honestly no middle ground here.

For a personal site, use something like Nikola or Jekyll and let the default themes handle it. Or hire/find a friend, either to help you test or to just give you working CSS.

Here's a tip ty. Dark colours on light background. Light colours on dark backgrounds. If you want I can help you out with colours and what looks good and what looks bad.

If the question is actually just how do sighted people do this...

I know a sighted frontend developer as a somewhat close friend, and work with some others.  There are guidelines you can pull from, i.e. Apple's human interface guidelines, and for accessibility there's the WCAG 2.0.  But it really just seems to turn into art for everyone, like the digital app equivalent of painting.  There's also a large degree of being blind meaning not having certain shared experiences to draw from.  And in this case even a little bit of vision doesn't help you have those experiences, because the details that people get stuck on are very fine details indeed.

It's like how sighted people i.e. freak out when I go cooking in the kitchen with the sharp knives or don't understand how I'm living alone: there's too much of a gap for there to be a good common language, and people on one side have to try very hard to even get a little bit of what it's like to be on the other side of it.  But it's not formulaic like programming and you'll be hard pressed to find some sort of table or something to draw from.

@9 I just love how you always have wwhat's needed. You're quite resourceful.

@11
It depends. In some respects thats an argument of one learning style over another, since some benefit more from theory than others do. For many visual artists they can learn innately because visual material isn't an abstract concept, though some benefit more from theory study than others in practice. There are an enormous number of styles and ways to create art however, some more formulaic or programmatic than others, like OpenSCAD for modeling, or Povray3D for raytracing. In the end its just arranging 2D arrays of data into particular patterns by arbitrary standards. When I say "theory", I mean the application of particular techniques and methods in a structured deterministic way, much like programming. Given that visual art may be an abstract concept for non-visual users, working on such a practical, or theoretical side first can help conceptually build a foundation towards more practical experience.

When it comes to my own pixel art, I tend to work methodically and geometrically using patterns with existing art techniques, or at times with programatically generated procedural art. Same with GUI Design.

I did some front-end work at one of my previous internships. All I did was look up Bootstrap tags and get a general sense of what they do. I incorporated what I thought was asked of me, handed it off to another dev, and they either confirmed it was the necessary change or not. I'd then try again once more, and if that didn't take the dev would just do it himself.
Now, in practical terms, it's far easier to just have someone else do the visually-driven things. That doesn't mean you can't be a part of building the HTML. Far too many front-end devs think HTML is too make the website "look visually-appealing," and that is an intro to web design 101 kind of bullet point that isn't talked about or stressed enough. [DO NOT] use headings to make your text look bigger. That's what CSS is for. Remember the ML stands for "markup language." You're quite literally marking up the content of your website. In other words, the HTML just describes the content, but does not operate as the driver for making it appear in a visually-pleasing manner.
My point here is that while you won't find it easy to do front-end work in terms of visual aesthetics, you can still play a vital role in how HTML is handled, and that makes a whole world's difference when it comes to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and what that means for screen-reader users.

Just to reiterate - yes, there is nothing stopping you from using CSS yourself, but there exist no tools to tell you whether or not it is "appealing," seeing as it's a subjective thing that companies have dedicated teams for. You are not going to be able to accomplish front-end work all on your own as a totally-blind person if you're shooting for aesthetics.

@12
It's not really an argument about learning styles.  If it was possible to do music via music theory or painting via painting theory, we'd have had AI doing this in the 90s.  yes, it's useful.  yes, you can use it as a jumping off point. But at the end of the day it's really, really not enough.

@17
it doesn't matter. because you also have 3.  3 is there is literally no reliable tool to tell you whether your CSS is working.  There is no need for such a tool because for sighted people that tool is called functional vision.

Blind people can't do everything.  This is one of the things we can't do.  The best I ever found for working on existing codebases is dpxdt, which can be used in CI setups to prove that you didn't break CSS, but it still doesn't tell you if the CSS you wrote is doing what you think, or even doing anything at all.

If you rope a sighted friend in you can write the CSS, but note that this still requires a sighted friend.  I also went through the "but maybe somehow" bargaining phase that everyone goes through and there isn't a maybe somehow for this one.

Just because it works does not mean that it will do so in your situation. Not every code runs the same and different browsers. Not every code runs the same and different page layouts. You can’t tell that it works as it should.
Finally, people may have had different reasons to use such CSS. It may have been contrasting with something else on the page. It may have been highlighting something which you don’t even have. You just can’t tell that something is appropriate in your situation when it comes to visual components. It’s like saying to use parts of Linux code in windows because they’re both OS’.

@18
What precisely are we talking about here? I don't disagree that theory isn't everything, but in what respect is it not enough? Aesthetically? In the functional creation of digital art? In the development of complex CSS scripting? There are varying degrees of complexity in each endeavor that can inform different approaches and tools for the tasks, you don't necessarily need an exquisitely complex CSS page for example.

Skipping professional employment, what would you consider a workable level of CSS for a personal webpage?

1. Use WordPress or the default themes for whatever you are building. This will get things 90% there and will work to make your site not look bad.
2. Use a UI library like Vaadin that has default styling. You will need to sit next to someone with the CSS for your site open and go through each page to make sure it looks good.
3. Use something like Bootstrap CSS and then have a sighted person sit next to you and let you know what to do to make it look better.

Once you have an idea of what components people like, then you can plug and play those pieces of the UI into future sites, but you always need to have a sighted person look at the interface to see how it looks. I equate CSS to a more complex version of aria. You never want to use aria without having a screen reader user test it.