Having worn out so many adjectives, the latest and greatest word in the lexicon of social justice is “condescending.” The dictionary definition is both clear and vague:

con·de·scend·ing
kändəˈsendiNG/
adjective

having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority.

What constitutes “patronizing superiority” is a matter of feeling, making it easy to level and hard to refute. If the definition is based on what someone feels about what someone else says, then who can question whether they feel that way? That’s the problem with feelz, they’re personal and each of us is allowed to feel whatever we want. Our feelz are ours. You can’t touch them.

When Steve Silberman leveled the charge of condescension at the New York Times, together with a couple other vagaries, it piqued my curiosity. What would make him feel this way?

There were a few possibilities. Obviously, it came from the image attached to his twit, which comes at the bottom of a New York Times op-ed by Michael Kinsley.

The president’s flaws are well known to readers of many mainstream media outlets. Our purpose with this feature, which will appear regularly in Sunday Review, is to present things the president has said or done that are praiseworthy. Any suggestions? Tell us at [email protected]

But what part of this blurb (which shows a changed email address from the image twitted by Silberman) did he feel was “pathetic, condescending, and insulting”? (Oxford comma in original.) Was it the part about the “president’s flaws” being “well known to readers of many mainstream media outlets”? Or was it the part about presenting things “the president has said or done that are praiseworthy”?

Given that Silberman’s other twits suggest that he is not a fan of the president, it might seem likely that his outrage, which I take from his use of the word “f*ck” combined with his feeling sorry for the “many fine journalists” at the Times, is directed toward their solicitation of positive commentary about the president. How dare they give any space to this horrifying person. How dare they suggest there is anything that would serve to balance the evil?

But then, perhaps Silberman is referring to the fact that the Times can’t come up with anything praiseworthy itself, so it’s compelled to solicit ideas from the outside in order to create the appearance of balance? Or perhaps, despite his personal feelings toward Trump, Silberman is referring to the preface about how everybody knows the president’s flaws since that’s all the mainstream media seems to write about these days.

Does Silberman, despite his politics and feelings toward Trump, rise above the fray as a matter of personal integrity, to recognize that others are entitled to hold different political views that are worthy of respect, or at least fair media attention? Or is his attack risible?

This is what makes condescending such an odd and unfortunate word to use to describe the Times’ solicitation. Was he referring to the Times or himself? Either way, what about it suggested “patronizing superiority”?  Or did he use the word because it’s in vogue these days as people run out of insults?