Not this dumb metaphor again

I pit the press guy for Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) for using one of the dumbest metaphors and reminding us why all the violent metaphors we use can backfire. The title of one of his news releases:

You’re gonna “combat violence.” Brilliant!

We shouldn’t fight fire with fire?

Tit for tat?

You got a what on the what, now?

It’s a war on violence.

We should fight everything with fire.

lance armstrong, noted progressive, concern trolling progressives again. Huzzah!

When it has made the dictionary as one of the meanings, it is no longer a metaphor.

And if you were really upset enough about it to Pit someone over it, I would question your sanity.

But it could backfire! It already has! Look at this thread, I’m sure the press guy for Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) must be feeling the burn of this thread!

maybe “lance armstrong” is a metaphor, which makes the title make sense.

**combat **
verb com·bat \kəm-ˈbat, ˈkäm-ˌ\

: to try to stop (something) from happening or getting worse

: to struggle against; especially : to strive to reduce or eliminate <combat pollution>

: take action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable). “an effort to *combat *drug trafficking”
It’s not even a metaphor, let alone a dumb one. But yes, something or someone is very dumb here.

I hate hate, just hate it.

So errant definition of “metaphor” aside, why did “Combat Violence” trip the OP’s trigger especially?

Would it have worked better as “Oppose Violence” or “Combat Aggression” or “Quit Being so Mean”?

We need to:
Fight for peace
disallow intolerance,
Despise hatred
Categorically reject all generalities.
Silence the censors
and speak out against propaganda.

And avoid cliche’s like the plague.

Maybe he’s feeling the Bern.

And excess apostrophes.

Wait, I thought real men spoke cliche.

No, real men don’t eat quiche. Close, though.

The utter stupidity of this comment aside, my comments have nothing to do with Maloney’s political beliefs.

But it shouldn’t be in the dictionary though.

Do you think “literally” should mean “not literally” too?