You must not be familiar with the "Prescriptivist vs Descriptivist" debate.

http://english.blogoverflow.com/2012/10/prescriptivism-and-d...

> Common use does not make it right.

In fact, this is the very mechanism by which language evolves.

You mean degrades?

Being flexible with my language doesn't keep me from being precise. I said what I meant.

Actually not. If you google the debate you'll find there's a history of using the word this way that goes back a very, very, long time in a variety of literature.

I have to admit I thought the same as you until someone pointed this out.

Common use is literally the only thing which defines correctness.

¿Por que no los dos? In current use, ‘literally’ for emphasis is a sign of a lowbrow sociolect.

> lowbrow sociolect

Is this Pretentious Twaddlese for "stupid"?

No, for ‘ignorant’, as the grandparent said.

The dictatorship of the Majority ?

I find it weird that this fight is only over "literally" (which doesn't actually literally mean non-metaphorically, but rather "to do with letters") but not "really", "truly" and "actually" and other such words which do literally mean "this is true and real".

You've fallen victim to Muphry's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

"litterally" only has one t in it.

The same word in French as two so this is probably one letter that was dropped over time.

> Common use does not make it right.

Yes, it does. There is no "right" in language use beyond communication with the target audience. What people understand a word to mean is all there is.