... but you created the same No True Scotsman in the inverse, up thread?

Your definition of "white privilege" assumes a complete homogeneity of experience that is absolutely not the case. Do you actually believe that all white people experience life in the exact way you described?

#NotAllWhitePeople is not a very useful line of rhetoric if the goal is to solve the problem of equity in opportunity.

It is a given and openly acknowledged that not all white people have the same chances. But it doesn't seem particularly accurate to assert that a difference in equity is insignificant between folks who only differ in race because of some pre-existing intra-race variance.

And #AllWhitePeople is? If it's a "given" that "not all white people" have the same life experience, then why is it a useful line of rhetoric, in your case, to pretend that they do? I'm not following your last sentence. Is your claim that the intra-race variance of experience is sufficiently [edit: not] different to a degree that it's useful, rhetorically speaking, to pretend that one race's experience is homogeneous?

The differences in equity within the cohort of white people is in general of a lower magnitude than differences in equity between white folk and black folk. That's the starkest and, in America at least, the most historically important comparison between races and thus the thing that usually ends up getting talked about most.

Not all white people, but a large majority of white people, have it better off than most minority folks, with some notable exceptions.