The problem with seeing “racism against whites” as a reason for concern is not what we call it: is that racism is a socio-economic issue, and as such racism against whites does not exist.

You can use that definition, which partially but not entirely overlaps with the historical definition (and doesn’t make much sense etymologically, but whatever). Let’s go with it. I’m not talking about that. It’s a serious problem, of course, the socio-economic fetters placed on everyone who doesn’t tick just the right boxes. Although those fetters are substantially less constraining now that they were in past decades, they’re still unjust and inhumane and need to be removed. It’s hard work, given how many of them are invisible.

But that’s not what I was talking about, or what the original poster was talking about. I’m talking about a consistent pattern of speech which is both protected and vile, which deserves condemnation for attempting to fracture the fabric of society, to redefine us as enemies instead of friends in a sorrowfully somewhat abusive relationship, to disparage and demean people for what they look like instead of who they are or what they do.

This is wrong, hurtful, and destructive. Furthermore, it’s counterproductive when trying to address socioeconomic inequality, as it alienates natural allies in the effort to combat structural sources of inequality and widespread bias.

Racism isn’t a popular topic of discussion because it’s philosophically interesting: it’s discussed because it sparks real conflict and it justifies inequality.

That’s entirely true, but there is a long history of hate speech justifying terrible actions. For instance, hate speech by Islamic extremists about Westerners has been used, multiple times, to provoke violence.

So both the “racism = socio-economic oppression” and “racism = bigotry on the basis of appearance and ancestry” are deeply problematic.

Minority members freely expressing themselves in public are only possible because the society at large has learned to look past racial stereotypes and combat inequality.

Yes, because racial stereotypes and like speech is correctly regarded as distasteful; that kind of speech is discouraged, not humored, not viewed as humorous or just. You might understand why it arises from people who you categorize as advantaged and from those who you categorize as not, but you can still condemn it regardless of who is saying it. (You can condemn someone’s reaction to being provoked even while condemning the provokers far more strongly.)

There isn’t any version of society in which minorities are going to come out on top and rule poor whites with an iron fist.

Stranger things have happened, though I agree that this isn’t very likely. However, if you review various sorts of racial conflict throughout history, you can see that tables can turn in all sorts of directions rather quickly. Rwanda is a good recent example of this where a minority gained power, solidified it, committed genocide against a majority, then were defeated, and were attacked in turn. It’s horrible and tragic. Turning a blind eye to hateful rhetoric is only going to make ugly actions more probable.

Those who feel threatened by this idea, those who can’t see how absurd it is, are going to be mostly those who see racial superiority as a legitimate tool for power: actual white racist.

How do you know this? Nobody is a majority if you slice the minority finely enough. “White men” are a minority in the United States. Not a small enough minority? How about “White Christian men”. Not small enough? Okay, “White Evangelical men”.

Everyone has, in the long run, to fear persecution as a minority, even if they’re seemingly part of the “on top” group right now.

If you’re not worried by this kind of rhetoric, I think your reading of history is insufficiently broad.

Seeing racial slur against whites tolerated terrifies racists.

I don’t care much about how racists feel. They don’t call the shots any more; as you rightly point out, society has moderated to the point where their viewpoints are on the fringe. I care about the impact on society overall, and the kind of message it sends to say that as long as you pick the right group of people, the one who you say is in power, that you can engage in all the hateful bigoted speech you want.

Do you forget that the Jews, when the victims of such rhetoric, were supposed to be in charge of everything through shady financing and other monetary tricks?

So I reject bigoted speech. I reject it always, regardless of the speaker, regardless of the target. I reject it until someone can credibly demonstrate that this is a tactic that leads reliably to good ends instead of the kind of suffering, misery, and cruelty that have surrounded it in the past.

I suggest you reject it likewise.