Honestly, as someone who has used the term quite a lot, I think the conclusion here is correct but the focus of the article is less on making the case and more

Honestly, as someone who has used the term quite a lot, I think the conclusion here is correct but the focus of the article is less on making the case and more on the inaccuracy of the basis of the metaphor, with a few other issues mentioned in the introduction and the conclusion. (1) the metaphor is not to something actually readily popularly recognizable (despite being an image from "pop culture"; its true it comes from pop culture portrayals, but it is not the case that it is to a phenomenon which, outside of familiarity with the metaphor, lots of people are currently familiar with), which is why the (inaccurate) basis of the metaphor typically needs to be explained two people who have never heard the metaphor before. (2) while neither the term nor the reference is that recognizable, for those too whom the term is recognizable, the use in the metaphor will often refers to a different thing than they are familiar with, either because their knowledge comes from the real phenomenon described by the term, or because they are used to different metaphors to the same inaccurate image. It therefore is not an aid to understanding even where the term is familiar. (3) It doesn't actually, the way metaphor can, provide a concise way to describe a concept which would otherwise require a complex explanation. It's an exclusionary term that, because it requires explanation, makes people feel like part of an in-group, but it doesn't do anything to facilitate communication. It describes a practice being done by habit without an understanding of reason, or, more concisely, by rote.