More Taxonomic Issues > Condescending vs. Horizontal Empowerment

In the universe of social discourse, how do we describe and identify:
Kingdoms? > Phyla? > Classes? > Orders? > Genera? > Species?

For example: Regarding the alt-Right's and various, empty, social-media echo-bots' use of the word:

Condescending: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescending

. . . .

If I say something is green, are you to assume that it is identical with all other phenomena having not only the quality that we refer to as "greenness" and, further more, that the degree and quality of greenness is the same in all green phenomena, but also, are you to assume that green thing is identical in all other traits, whatever those traits are, with other green things?

Of course, this assumption is absurd; we're talking about the phenomenal universe here, not to mention intrinsic allusions to the diversity not only of humans but also of the human facility for language, but how common is this type of invalid and unreliable semantic assumption? and where do we encounter it at its densest?

Substitute the word "condescending" for the word "green" in the preceding paragraph.

Which is more condescending: 1. to assume what you think is "superior" is assumed to be, or is in actual fact, superior to all others, or 2. to assume people speak ask peers with other peers whatever their differences?

Isn't it condescending to assume that all speech is the same pissing-contest for power that you say it is and that there is no speech that occurs for the love of sharing freely? Which of these two attitudes would be more characteristic of proponents of Citizens United > Corporate Personhood > Money-as-"free"-speech?

And if we obfuscate, and thus auto-exclude, what isn't condescending with what is condescending, what will the effect upon horizontal power-sharing be and to whose advantage?  For example, here's a sample of the use of that word from Stephen King, which Merriam-Webster Dictionary included with their definition of the word "condescending", linked above. Please excuse my bolding and the underline in some of the typeface for emphasis:

"The next big sequel to roll off the assembly line (awful, condescending phrase, BUT THIS IS A CASE OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WHEN THE SHOE FITS) is going to be a sequel to 'Rebecca,' Daphne du Maurier's classic 1930's suspense novel. - Stephen King, New York Times Book Review, 6 June 1993"

King is referring to film production that is, in fact, mass produced, so he's saying that, though his reference to those "assembly line(s)" appears "condescending", it isn't condescending, since he's speaking from an aesthetic, and an ethos, btw, that he is identified with because he shares that with others who are his peers.

Perhaps you sense that this little sketch is motivated by some pique at being called "condescending" by some anonymous person somewhere in the social e-verse. To some extent, you'd be correct in that, but I'd like to add that my frustration stems from a lifetime of fascination with what can most efficiently be referred to by means of the shorthand in the word "phenomenology". Empiricism, stripped of all of our abstractions about it (or to at least identify the abstractions, and, hence, UNTESTED assumptions, that we are using), has motivated me for almost 70 years now (68 years, to be exact, as of today).

Empirical knowledge excites me. I feel enthusiastic about it, so I am concerned when experiential learning is shut down, before it even gets on its own two feet, by the absurd, but extremely common, invalid, and unreliable assumptions we make about the words we use about ourselves and others. Those errors will only compound invalidity and unreliability, what is true will be obfuscated by what is false, until we, as peers horizontally sharing the power of relatively valid reliable information, openly, honestly, courageously, and completely discuss the similarities and differences in the things that words ONLY refer to.