Yeah, so, if you're advocating for empathy, maybe that's an indication that this isn't a smart strategy? Making people feel attacked intentionally isn't really an indication of an empathic outlook. And making people feel attacked is a terrible way to induce empathy in them.

You seem--you haven't quite stated it flat out, but it is the natural consequence of the arguments--to be arguing to keep calling people racist.

Now there is an argument for that, but it's not the empathy argument. It's the tough love / straight talk argument: you need to get this message clearly and directly because being racist does make you a worse person and you need to cut it out.

The natural consequence of the empathy stance is to reserve words like racist for the worst thoughts and actions, and instead talk about things like historical injustice, unflattering stereotypes, patterns of speech that might be unintentionally but significantly hurtful, and so on. You can make basically all the same points.

So, I can't quite tell what you're advocating for. But I think you've at least implicitly advocated for two different positions that are incompatible. Taking some blend of each could also be argued for. My point here isn't to suggest which one is more effective; my point is that there is a tension here that, if not discerned, may make any effort substantially less effective than it ought to be. For instance, if you take a straight-talk approach while thinking (but not displaying) empathy, you might interpret the reaction as racism rather than natural defensiveness. This might cause you to up the rhetoric, which will to you seem like a reasonable pushback against open racism, and to them seems like specious, aggressive accusations, etc..