Over time the original meaning may fade or be forgotten, and the residual symbol in the language becomes the thing itself. Etymology is full of examples.
But that much history has not yet passed since the introduction of the term "curbstomping" and so using it is still a choice that conveys some meta-meaning about content and style.
As mentioned further up in the thread it is unnecessarily violent for conveying the meaning in the comment.
No reason to make it an issue, people just like using those metaphors.
> [Hobbes] even, through sheer force of imagination, was able to outline the main psychological traits of the new type of man who would fit into such a society and its tyrannical body politic. He foresaw the necessary idolatry of power itself by this new human type, that he would be flattered at being called a power-thirsty animal, although actually society would force him to surrender all his natural forces, his virtues and his vices, and would make him the poor meek little fellow who has not even the right to rise against tyranny, and who, far from striving for power, submits to any existing government and does not stir even when his best friend falls an innocent victim to an incomprehensible raison d'etat.
-- Hannah Arendt
And that only applies to criticizing phrases like "killing it", without even demanding it to not be used -- but not to bringing out Nineteen-Eightyfour? And doublespeak? No, doublethink means holding two contradictory things to be true at the same time, doublespeak is the verbalization of that. You're thinking of wrongthink, and either way you are doing what you criticize. Instead of saying "this is horrible" you say "this is dystopian", it changes nothing.
More importantly, your reply contains nothing specifically applying to my comment. Maybe you missed the point, which is that people delude themselves to compensate their lack of agency, being restricted to partake in a rat race that will leave them empty-handed in the end -- all of which Hannah Arendt explains in the context, but I didn't want to post a wall of text. That they don't actually mean what they say, because what they mean (and do) would be to pitiful to say without such flourish, and that they aren't actually violent and powerful, but "poor meek little fellows", is precisely the point.
> beat Kasparov
So much violence everywhere
We're building tools to help us augment our intelligence, I don't see anyone getting "curb stomped"?
If intelligence leads to more violence, then I don't think it will be as useful as we'd have hoped.