>Would you be happy with 'I died laughing ...' when people describe something especially funny? (I would, for the record.)

Then you would already be OK with something analogous to using "literally" as an intensifier.

Since, of course, "died" also means something specific that's unrelated to laughing, and the person uttering the phrase doesn't imply that they actually died.

>If someone said 'I literally died twice from laughter ...' would that be doublepluscompelling?

No, that's why people don't say it. It's the historical evolution of language that dictates what's "doublepluscompelling" or not, not some a priori rules.

"He literally glowed; without a word or a gesture of exultation a new well-being radiated from him and filled the little room." - F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

like

Now you're just coming off as mad at intensifiers in general. Sure, you can write without them. Doesn't stop them from being useful.

None of this is important.