>my guess is that nobody expected terms of comedy and theater at the workplace

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.

In fact I argued it's a metaphor in active use! But I also guessed metaphors taken out of context are likely to be misinterpreted. I know plenty of native English speakers who don't know what "straight man" means.

But metaphors are always taken out of context. Nobody says it's time to bite the bullet with a bullet in their hand. Referring to a situation that is not presently happening in order to explain one that is is the definition of a metaphor.

That's not what I meant by context. "In context" doesn't mean "the literal meaning" and it's easy to see that "straight man" wasn't taken literally by the person who took offense, either. Metaphors must be used in context, they just aren't meant to be taken literally; a metaphor about comedy/theater is always in context when watching (or acting) in one. You don't have to explain it.

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.

>a metaphor about comedy/theater is always in context when watching (or acting) in one

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.

Disagreed.

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.

According to your take, you can't use the term "devil's advocate" in this context either -- because it only makes sense in the context of the Catholic church. Metaphors are meant to be used out of context. When I say "I'm in pole position," for example, I don't actually have to be a competitor in an automobile race.

Um, "devil's advocate"? I didn't say anything about that.

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.

"Straight man" makes just as much sense as "devil's advocate," neither of them apply to a workplace situation. The former applies to comedy performances, and the latter applies to biblical characters. Neither can be used in a day-to-day setting according to you. You're drawing a distinction where one can't be made, probably because your ego is preventing you from admitting you're wrong. Have a nice day, I guess.

Oh wait, it's night time, so I shouldn't use that metaphor -- goodbye.

> "Straight man" makes just as much sense as "devil's advocate,"

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!

> straight man: the person in a comedy duo who speaks lines which give a comedian the opportunity to make jokes

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."

> All you have to do is change "comedy duo" to "coworker pair" and "jokes" to "explanation of architecture."

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).

Not having everyone on the team be as familiar with English, especially its idioms and figures of speech, is a great reason to avoid using them and stick to (legalistically) simplistic vocabulary. Unfortunately it also makes its usage feel cold and dry which in turn affects the company culture. There have been plenty of times I wanted to use a phrase that was perfect for the situation at hand and all its connotations would have helped provide lots of context “for free” in the discussion, but couldn’t because I wasn’t sure if certain people on the team would understand due to past misunderstandings among the team.

If the meaning you (incorrectly) infer is offensive, you might have a hard time asking... Consider this: what if the person who took offense was gay, was recently harassed at a past workplace, was sensitive about the issue, maybe wasn't a native English speaker, and was told by an older coworker that he would play "the straight man" to his team pitch.

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.

My guess is that he meant "play the devil's advocate" and got it mixed up half way through. That happens to people all the time with metaphors, especially when our minds are hard at work on the actual problem at hand, sometimes ending up pretty funny, like "we'll burn that bridge when we get to it."

>but couldn’t because I wasn’t sure if certain people on the team would understand due to past misunderstandings among the team.

If someone doesn't understand an idiom, why can't they ask?

They might feel self conscious. Or maybe they think they understand it fine even though they’ve misunderstood it. That seems to be what happened to the man who was ostracized for using the perfectly legitimate ”play the straight man” phrase. People don’t always make the best choices and sometimes it’s not immediately obvious why they make terrible ones.