Not OP, but if we accept the common definition of racism as "prejudice or discrimination against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group"
And then now define a new term, "reverse racism" to mean a better/lesser quality of racism based on which racial or ethnic group it originates from, you are being racist in your very definition.
Gee, it's some complicated meta game. I agree, this division is racist. But at the same time, if you are not thinking about the races, just about what's happening, the distinction is not racist, it's just a different pattern of behavior.
To disconnect emotions something like: scientist first not including some outliers in the data set, but after having been scolded for that, adding a few random points here and there so that he's not accused of it again. Both bad, both fabricating data, but we can still talk about them naming them differently.
That said, since racism is in the name of that subgroup, I can see parent comment's point more clearly now, and yes it makes sense, at least given that name.
You left off the last part of the definition: "typically one that is a minority or marginalized." The meaning of "racism" is evolving right now and the relative power of the two parties is becoming a more important component of the definition.
I might be wrong about that, but it's my current understanding.
At the core, "racism" means: discrimination because of race.
This happens very often because that race is also a minority.
So much so that most experience of racism is also the experience of being discriminated for being a minority.
That doesn't make racism against a majority in the wider population less racist. It just doesn't make it racism and not minority discrimination.
The "reverse" of something that isn't strictly a logical statement could mean any number of things: is "reverse racism" positive discrimination? Is it the lack of discrimination because of race? Is it discrimination because of lack of racial identity? is it simply "msicar" (racism spelled backwards)?
What one tries to say is: "Reverse racism" is supposed to mean "racist behavior towards a group of people that make out the majority of the population". That has a word: It's "racism". It unfortunately overlaps with the type of racism that happens on minorities, but there's nothing "reverse" about it. "Reverse" carries some undertone of "retributal", as in being racist back because of racist treatment... there's a whole can of worms of implied meaning here that is not well-intended or seeks to understand why people behave racist. Whereas if you use the term "racism" to describe this behavior, it's actually well-defined.
Certainly, some would like to define it that way. But one doesn’t have to go along with it. The rejected young man isn’t the powerful party in this anecdote. So, you’d have to put this “whites on top” canonical race hierarchy over the actual situation presented, as if whites are supreme categorically. One can also object to Americans’ canonical race hierarchy itself. No, one does not have to go along with this.
At it's peak less than 4% of Rhodesia population was white. Less than 8% of South Africa is white. Was apartheid and other policies morally justified? Because those there at the time certainly felt so (otherwise they wouldn't). This isn't evolution but evil taking form.
And then now define a new term, "reverse racism" to mean a better/lesser quality of racism based on which racial or ethnic group it originates from, you are being racist in your very definition.
It is as ridiculous as a square circle.