[l33t2328]

So is serving them food during training and sewing their uniforms.

Being essential to their job doesn’t make them comparable jobs.

[oonerspism]

It's good that nobody said they were comparable jobs, then.

By the way, regarding computer work, I was talking about actual SEAL work, not support staff. The direct intelligence and digital recon work that intimately guides field teams is very much computer based, being carried out by personnel who are directly part of the SEAL structure.

Even field-centric SEAL operatives themselves, there are probably 3 computers-worth of digital equipment on their person at any given time.

So the tough-guy notion that "big military specops dudes have nothing to do with weak nerdy computer stuff, lol!" - which is embodied in the post calling the metaphor 'risible' - is very misguided indeed.

[l33t2328]

> are directly part of the SEAL structure.

So are the people that serve them food

> big military specops dudes have nothing to do with weak nerdy computer stuff, lol!

No one is saying that. Everyone is aware of the role computers have. They’re (correctly) saying that comparing the jobs is asinine.

[oonerspism]

The original comment we're discussing is: "comparing anything done sitting at the computer to the Navy SEALs is risible".

Some of the work done by Navy SEALs literally does involve things done sitting at computers, so the original comment is directly contradicting itself, and is therefore incorrect.

[l33t2328]

> Some of the work done by Navy SEALs literally does involve things done sitting at computers

It also involves them being fed and having their equipment maintained.

Comparing the jobs is risible.

[oonerspism]

The figure-of-speech simply pivots upon key traits common to both parties.

You're perfectly entitled to not like the choice of common traits in somebody else's figure-of-speech. Have at it. :)

[Gollapalli]

I think he just meant "level of physical risk undertaken."

[oonerspism]

Agree + acknowledge. It's an arbitrary constraint however, to imply that any comparison to SEALs must be based upon physical prowess.

Why should metaphors referencing the SEAL's mental tenacity, their problem solving abilities, their dedication, their principles, their protective role, their place as an agent of conflict, not be equally valid?

Of course they are, and it's only those who put an overemphasis upon physical prowess (at the detriment of all else) who are offended by the author's metaphor here.

[l33t2328]

> any comparison to SEALs must be based upon physical prowess

Since items an inherently physical job, it makes sense.

We all agree computers are important. That doesn’t make the comparison less ridiculous.

[oonerspism]

Figures-of-speech allow for a broad range of comparison. As mentioned already, several key SEAL traits such as:

presence in conflict; mental strength; role as specialists; frontline protection work keeping regular people safe; tenacity and dedication

..are also key traits of vastly disparate things like online moderation.

Figures-of-speech referencing those other qualities are perfectly valid.

[l33t2328]

Comparing the level of these traits present in online moderators to the level of these traits present in SEALs is inexplicable.

[oonerspism]

"Comparing the level of these traits present in online moderators to the level of these traits present in SEALs is inexplicable."

As some of the traits noted are binary - either present, or not - the concept of "level" is not applicable.

The commonality of the traits is a valid basis for figure-of-speech.