Sounds like some one had done a diversity course and missed the point, to be kind. There are other less charitable conclusions that could be drawn.
That's a bit of a stretch, metaphors are the grease for the engine of the English language. In fact I've even heard this specific phrase many times before, recently. It's a metaphor in active use. The company was probably looking for a reason to get rid of him.
Likewise, if I talk about a "foil" while cooking in the kitchen, I'm likely to be interpreted one way; if I talk about the same while discussing comedy, it's likely to be taken differently.
Context matters.
Calling someone in theater a Straight Man isn't a metaphor, that would be an example of a literal usage. A metaphor is when you refer to a distant situation or thing to explain a present one. If you demand that metaphors only be deployed in their "context" you are saying you can only compare situations to themselves.
I don't know if "metaphor" is the word, but in comedy/theater obviously it's not the literal usage either, it's a figure of speech (unless the man is physically straight). That our understanding of this is different is another example that the term wasn't as pervasive or well understood as you initially thought.
Yes, metaphors and figures of speech must be deployed in context, like all of human language. There's a certain kind of humor based on saying things out of context -- I don't recommend you use it at the workplace (or risk being fired). I'm sure you've experienced telling a pun out of context and being misunderstood. The same principle applies.
Human communication is about context. The modern workplace requires more precise consideration of context.
But let's roll with it: "devil's advocate" is a phrase appropriate for the situation described in the original post ("let me hear your suggestion, I'll try to find any flaws or objections to it for the sake of debate"), so it has the correct context, whereas "I'll play the straight man to your suggestion" makes little sense outside comedy, and if the offended person had understood it, they could even have thought it meant "you're the person saying funny crazy things, I'm the sensible person hearing them".
> Metaphors are meant to be used out of context.
No. Let me reiterate: every form of human communication needs context in order to be effective. Metaphors must be deployed in context, otherwise they risk being misunderstood, as it happened in this case.
The context of a metaphor is NOT its literal interpretation. If you think that's what I'm saying, I apologize: that's not what I meant at all.
The context is a situation where the metaphor makes sense or applies. A situation where there's a contest and a "best" position is the right context for saying "I'm in pole position", though it doesn't have to be an actual race; a situation where this doesn't apply is not the right context.
Oh wait, it's night time, so I shouldn't use that metaphor -- goodbye.
I disagree. It's easy to see why "straight man" doesn't make sense in this situation if you try to explain to me how it makes sense. I can't. I can explain how "devil's advocate" makes sense though: it means arguing the opposition to an idea not because you necessarily disagree, but because you want to explore the negatives/other possibilities. What does "straight man" mean to you?
> The former applies to comedy performances
Correct.
> the latter applies to biblical characters.
Incorrect. If you think this, you're confusing a metaphor's literal interpretation with its meaning.
"Have a nice day" isn't a metaphor, at this point it seems you're being purposefully obtuse.
Have a nice day!
All you have to do is change "comedy duo" to "coworker pair" and "jokes" to "explanation of architecture."
> devils advocate: the popular title of the person appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to challenge a proposed beatification or canonization, or the verification of a miracle
All you have to do is change "person appointed by the Roman Catholic Church" to "coworker" and "challenge a proposed beatification or canonization" to "challenge another person's ideas."
> purposefully obtuse
Is that worse than being unintentionally obtuse, like you're doing?
By the way, have you tried just looking up the word "metaphor?"
> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
Do you see the words at the end? "Not literally applicable."
But that doesn't work, because it requires changing the meaning/imagery of the metaphor beyond what regular people would recognize. You know, what actually happened in the situation of the original post.
Yes, I can change "straight man" to "spaceship" and "jokes" to "launch into space", but it'd be almost as nonsensical.
> By the way, have you tried just looking up the word "metaphor?"
Yes. Note you misunderstand the definition you quoted. Let me say it once more, then we're done: the CONTEXT of a metaphor is not ITS LITERAL MEANING, so quit yapping about literalness. Context matters. "Straight man" doesn't have the required context, "devil's advocate" does.
I don't expect you to acknowledge what I'm saying. At this point I must assume your ego won't let you budge an inch. Have a nice day! (which is not a metaphor, by the way).
And even then, consider that the offended person replied "say what!?" and in turn the older coworker didn't understand the reaction.
Talking to people is hard. Maybe funny metaphors shouldn't be used unless you know the other person's sense of humor. By the way "playing the straight man" while listening to another person's technical plan for a feature doesn't really parse for me; it sounds like a clumsy use of a figure of speech. I'd be surprised too by this usage.
If someone doesn't understand an idiom, why can't they ask?
I saw another engineer get hit for talking about triggering a job since "using triggering improperly downplays the trauma of survivors".
Not sure what that means other than it is time to set the LinkedIn status to looking.
This is nuts. Where is this? Silicon Valley?
Watch what you say citizen, only those on the highest of horses are allowed to express themselves how they please.
This climate of fear made me absolutely miserable. To the point that I have vowed never to be an employee again. I'm not spending 8h a day in an environment where the thought police is breathing down my neck. I'd rather beg on the streets.
sounds like a horrible place to work anyway, blameless postmortems aside.
It worked great, and we ended up with much more robust systems than most other places I'd worked.
Sadly, they didn't apply the same ideals to social faux pas. We had an older gentleman working for us who, on hearing a younger member of the team propose an idea, said: "okay, I'll play the straight man: why won't this cause [...]"
In the poor guy's generation, "straight man" was a stand-up comedy term for the person who acts deadpan and surprised while their partner makes with the comedy. But after explaining his actions and the expectations/assumptions behind them, he was reprimanded, ostracized in the office, and left before long.
Even though I liked working on the technical systems at that job, I felt isolated and uncomfortable speaking with my peers after that. I've never been good with people, and what if I made a mistake?
That sort of terror is what non-technical folks feel when you ask them to start taking on new responsibilities, and it's why these blameless systems are so important.