I hate to be the other obnoxious guy that responds to the self proclaimed obnoxious guy, but I see the quite a bit lately, even paraded in XKCD. Is there a significant group of people that absolutely abhors all rhetorical figures of speech? Or is it only specific ones, such as metaphors and hyperbole, with simile being mostly OK? Just curious.
Could be a symptom of being a plain old nitwit, too, but not being a psychologist I wouldn't have any insight to offer beyond that.
In medical circles it would be called "learning disability".
On a more serious note though, mocking people who use a lot of metaphors is a good way to try to make yourself look intellectually superior. I see it a lot these days and I find it very passive aggressive. Back in school people making those kinds of comments would be called smartasses and have their asses kicked for using that kind of language.
I think the question is this: does a rhetorical figure of speech help the reader or writer see the things being compared or figurized in a new way? If the answer is no, then perhaps we should look at those rhetorical things as literal, in order to remind ourselves of the power of rhetoric.
I favor metaphors and hyperbole like politicians favor hand-shaking and baby-kissing. But it to be done well.
"By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot -- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking. "
"Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."
Your own little "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" moment.
Our minds are amazing machines.