> using this vernacular diminishes and marginalizes the immense suffering of humans caught in an actual war for any reason.

I don’t know that anyone (or at least a sizeable number of people) in an actual war views it this way.

What is the causal link in your mind?

Should we also ban the phrase “I’m starving”? What about “I’m sick and tired…”? Upping the intensity factor, what about “the underdog annihilated the #1 ranked player”?

Yeah I see this argument a lot in the infosec industry where military terms are used quite a bit, but its never passed the sniff test. Usually the argument is that the toxicity, shitty work-life balance, and lack of minorities all comes from ex-military people or whatever, meanwhile:

- RTFM, flaming, and calling people noobs comes from IRC culture

- The OSCP (_the_ standard red team certification) is 48 hours long, the company offering it currently woman-led

- The most common background in my experience for minorities in this industry is ex-military

Im not saying we should ban any phrases, just using war talk when the worst that happens to you is you got to find another job is silly IMO. Feel free to use any ohrases you like, this is just my personal opinion, not here to police anyones speech.

The analogy is apt because war is an existential threat for the nation. Similarly, competition is an existential threat to the business.

I don’t think this is about war being cool so much as competition in the market place can kill your business just like an invading army can conquer your territory.

It’s about then mindset that you should adopt. Do you suppose that it’s ok for a business to let’s it’s competitors take its clients and market share? No of course not. You have to fight to keep it and take theirs. If you are equally matched then you will likely find equilibrium in the market. If you aren’t then someone is going to get eaten.

>it’s ok for a business to let’s it’s competitors take its clients and market share?

I wonder when businesses are OK with that? Seems like something you would like to avoid always, not just when "at war" (whatever that means - did someone declare war on you?)

Related, I've seen many business leaders overuse sports analogies in talk. (I don't really follow sports that much.) The message ends up being very white male cis, and not inclusive. It muddies the message, especially in tech companies with a diverse group of employees.

+ international folks, who have no clue what American "football" is, where many of these terms come from.

The need to like/watch sports and be fluid in this vernacular has been the no.1 reason why I have been put off from any foray into management, tbh. Its so childish to hear grown men (its generally always men) engage in banter around sports. Just because its been the norm doesn't mean its ok.

> white male cis

I think this stereotyping is unnecessary and divisive. I mean, there’s whole countries that are not run by white men! Plenty of white men hate sports, and are not trying to be alpha males. Most US sports analogies go over my head, because we play different sports in New Zealand!

Please, could someone from a country that is not run by white males comment on the sports madness (or lack thereof) of their own business leader culture?

Upvoting because words matter. You forgot to mention the fetishization of conflict we seem to have here in the US.