Mixing absolutist and relative thinking

I have debated SJWs who say that all white people are racist and at the same time they say that one white person can be more racist than another white person.  I know there are many problems with this kind of logic, but I want to tackle one part in particular: it seems wrong to mix the relative and absolute in this way.  If the absolutist version is true then all white people are equally racist and there is no difference in the level of racism between David Duke and whoever is the least racist white person on the planet.  If the relative is true then the least racist white person on the planet must not be a racist.  

There is similar thinking in christianity: All humans are sinners equally in the eyes of god, murderers and adulterers alike, and at the same time some "sinners" are made out to be more or less sinful than others.  You can't have both.  I feel that all absolutist thinking is dogmatic and irrational in nature.  I wondered if this is a specific fallacy of logic?

What Dr Bennett said is correct.

Let us assume that, for your first example, "all white people are racist" is correct (so 'absolutist' logic applies here.) This only implies, logically speaking, that all members of the class "white people" possess the characteristic "racist". It does not comment on the magnitude of that characteristic; so you can only infer that it is common .

Further to this, one may then extend the claim to say that "some white people can be more racist than others". Assume again that this is correct. This suggests, in logical terms, that it is possible for a member of the class "white people" to possess the characteristic "racist" in a greater magnitude than another member of that class. Because the absolutist position is true, all whites have a baseline level of racism, though there can be significant deviance from that baseline depending on how racist a given white person is.

To dispute it, you're going to have to dispute the claim that "all whites are racist". Ask the person what they mean by this. In my experience, they tend to adopt a definition of racism that involves structures of "power, prejudice and privilege". Since whites are afforded disproportionate privilege, and therefore power, their prejudice carries more weight. Since racism exists on a structural level, the group whose prejudice carries the most weight will influence said structure, meaning that only whites can be racist. It therefore follows that, since white privilege is common to all whites, all white people are racist QED.

The absolutism applies to the number, not the degree, so I see no problem with the logic here. All people can be somewhat annoying, to different degrees. Let me know if I am missing something here.

Note: Groups and categories are often relative and arbitrary, so the premise is inductive and not concrete)

All individuals in group W possess R. 

All individuals in group W can very in R.  

As you can see, there is nothing logically wrong the argument except that the first premise needs to be tested, which makes this claim inductive and less concrete as it might have a false premise. 

"If the absolutist version is true then all white people are equally racist and there is no difference in the level of racism" 

All individuals in group W possess quality R. 

Therefore, there is no variation in R within group W. 

Now, to me this seems like it might be a Non Sequitur fallacy to me as the conclusion does not follow the premise. 

"If the absolutist version is true then all white people are equally racist and there is no difference in the level of racism between David Duke and whoever is the least racist white person on the planet.  If the relative is true then the least racist white person on the planet must not be a racist. "

This seems like a False Dilemma Fallacy as it frames the argument in an either or fashion. Either its absolute and this way, or its relative and that way. The truth is more nuanced because there are verifying degrees within a group.

"I feel that all absolutist thinking is dogmatic and irrational in nature."

I would say that your existence itself is absolute, as its the only thing you cant deny. You probably feel that way because the groups you are debating have coopted and misused the term.