That's just like, literally your opinion, man.

I get it, sort of. In that case I just tell myself "it's hyperbole for lazy people" and move on. "Could care less", though, that one I cannot reconcile.

I reckon there's an implied sarcasm of "As If", that is: "as if I could care any less"

This is going to be my headcanon for why people do this (though it's more likely laziness/carelessness). This usage seems to be becoming more and more common, so this will help me pretend it makes sense and move on.

I like "I could care less. [In theory.]"

I'll take the bait here and be the one to point out that the usage of literally to mean "figuratively" is recorded in dictionaries at least 100 years old, and there are probably even older examples of that usage.

Literally doesn't mean "figuratively". It either means "literally", or it is used for emphasis, like "really" or "deeply" etc. But it is never used with the express purpose of meaning "figuratively", i.e. "not literally".

That is, no one is saying "I am literally dying to know" to try to communicate the fact that they are not, in fact, dying to know. Instead, the difference between "I am dying to know" and "I am literally dying to know" is one of emphasis. The second is almost perfectly equivalent to "I am really dying to know" or "I am very much dying to know".

By contrast, "I am figuratively dying to know" would imply that you are specifically not dying to know, which everyone understands perfectly well.

"That is literally insane."

What have I just said?

If only we had a word whose express purpose was to avoid ambiguity for those times when it matters to communicate without ambiguity...

"You left me waiting for days."

What have I just said?

If the context is that it's been a handful of minutes, we don't say my usage is wrong; we definitely don't say that "sometimes days means minutes" and fret about how anyone will communicated time. We say that sometimes people exaggerate.

You can still object, if you wish, on stylistic grounds. You can object that you'd prefer we keep "literally" apart from some standard uses of words lest we allow inappropriate ambiguity. But none of that means anyone is using "literally" to mean "figuratively".

There's no such thing as communication without ambiguity while using natural language. In your particular example, any interpretation depends crucially on what "that" might be referring to. It could refer to an animal, in which case you may mean that it seems to be suffering from a mental illness (maybe it has rabies) OR that it is unable to think clearly (it is insane with hunger, or excitement). It could be referring to an action, which may mean that it is either the action of someone suffering from a mental illness, or the action of someone being temporarily unable to think clearly, or it is an absurd action.

These are all literal meanings of insane. Of course, if we add figurative meanings we can increase the ambiguity further.

However, your criticism applies similarly to words like "truly" - if I say "that is truly insane", do I mean that it is insane in one of the literal senses of the word? Or the figurative uses? Am I just emphasizing either of these meanings, or do I feel a need to confirm that I am not lying?

Either way we take it, though, "literally" can never be replaced with "figuratively" without altering the meaning of a phrase. In it's use as an intensifier, it does NOT mean "figuratively", it means "very".

Also, looking on Merriam-Webster, they clearly discuss this and reach the same conclusion. They also mention that this meaning for emphasis appears as early as the 18th century, in the works of Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, Mark Twain.

Is that literally true?

That is a silly position. "Literally" has become an intensifier, like so many other words in the English language. It is no different from "truly" or "verily" or "really", and the path it took from its literal meaning to its intensifier status is identical.

It kinda makes sense that literally means figuratively, an alliteration to literature, where things often aren't meant literally either.

Like for reals? Because culture.

(I’m also wishing the horde off my lawn but they may have already won.)

Already happened: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...

is being ironic not permissiable in this prescriptivist future of yours?