Yes, I have severe personal problems. Literally means literally nothing to me when people use it to mean something other than literally.
Then your time would be better spent addressing this deficiency in your command of the language.
Merriam Webster has an ‘ask the editor’ video on this topic: Literally - Merriam-Webster Ask the Editor - YouTube
Hmm, while I was poking around there, I also noticed one for penultimate: Penultimate - Merriam-Webster Ask the Editor - YouTube
When talking about this news, a friend of mine said, “this is literally the worst thing I’ve heard all week”. I didn’t even know what she meant. 
Perfectly said. Pedants who insist that everyone descend to their own level of self-imposed ignorance carry very little weight with me.
Self imposed ignorance–that’s a good one, literally the best one I’ve ever heard.
Which deficiency is that exactly?
The one in which you admit that you’re unable to recognize a commonly-used intensifier when it’s used as an intensifier:
Most audiences understand what literally is meant in the intensifier situation. You’ve admitted you don’t. Seek help.
You’re clearly not a very intelligent person, and your reading comprehension is horrible. I said about 50 posts ago that I do know what the person means almost all the time. Please go back and read through it.
So what’s the problem? You said that " Literally means literally nothing to me when people use it to mean something other than literally." If that is true, then, yes, you are missing the point of using “literally” as an intensifier, as any other intensifier. It has semantic meaning. You may think it’s redundant or unnecessary or whatnot, but you may as well say that about any intensifier like “really,” “totally,” “fucking,” “clearly,” etc. All those words can be dropped when used as intensifiers, but they carry some meaning, whether you care to recognize that meaning as an intensifier or not. For example, in your sentence, you can say “you’re literally not a very intelligent person” and mean it both as an intensifier and for its literal meaning. Whether used hyperbolically or not, “literally” can be an intensifier.
Boo hoo, you don’t think I’m smart, bubububuh!
I hope that helps.
I’m sure you said that. You also said the bit I quoted. Consider getting your story straight; you may also consider the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach if you’d like to condescend to us plebes.
The problem is that words like clearly, totally, fucking, etc. are all used consistently–100% of the time each one of them carries the exact same meaning, and so they work well as intensifiers. The word “literally” originally was used to specifically indicate that the writer/speaker is not just intensifying his or her point; rather that he or she means it word for word.
The word “really” has enjoyed the dual meaning that is now being given to “literally.” Now that “literally” is being accepted that way, I believe there is not a clear way for a writer to make readers know that he or she is not merely intensifying. That may be a good thing for art’s sake, but in cases where someone is reporting on some factual event and uses the word “literally” in his or her descriptions, we might not be sure whether he means it in the original sense of the word or in the intensifying sense. Thus, I feel the word is devalued, and if a person wants to be a good communicator it would be better if he or she would save “literally” for those times where the original meaning is intended; as you pointed out, when one wants to intensify, those other words work fine, and I think, much better.
And yet nobody has been able to come up with an “in-the-wild” example in which there was any confusion, and even most of the contrived examples you and others have come up with have had fairly clear meanings.
And if there’s a situation in which someone needs to explain that something is actually true, and they think their audience is too literal-minded or pedantic or snobbish or dimwitted or whatever to understand that “literally” has two different meanings, I have a shorter* phrase they can use. And–this is true–the phrase appears in this sentence.
*by syllable, not by letter count
Huh? No more so than “literally.” You can pretty much drop in “really” in any case where you’d drop in “literally.” “Really” can be used to mean “literally” in the literal sense, or as an intensifier: “I could really use a drink right now.” (I literally would like a drink.) “I’d really kill for a cigarette right now.” (No, you wouldn’t.) And, yes, it literally carries the same meaning every time, as does “literally.” But sometimes it is used in the literal sense, and sometimes in an intensifying sense.
Please see below list of TWO “in the wild” examples of misunderstood uses of the word “literally,” both of which confused the professionally pedantic Jesse Sheidlower, and both of which were cited by Sheidlower in the same article. The Corrections were added to the bottom of the article. I believe the truly, literally dimwitted ones are those who surmised that such an instance would be unforeseeable. You’ll probably write this off as “contrived,” so rather than continue arguing with a brick wall I will consider my work done here.
Entire article (I apologize to the board if I’m not allowed to paste this in here).
Correction, March 6, 2013: This piece originally quoted a passage from Little Women—“the land literally flowed with milk and honey,”—as an example of literally used as an intensifier. Further context reveals that Louisa May Alcott was using literally literally. The passage has been removed.
Correction, Nov. 2, 2005: The original version of this piece misspelled the title of Jane Austen’s novel Sanditon. In addition, the piece included a quotation from Benjamin Franklin and said it used the word “literally” as an intensifier for a true statement. Franklin’s quotation, when considered in its full context, actually uses “literally” in its original sense.(Return to the corrected sentence.)
“Then Jo and Meg, with a detachment of the bigger boys, set forth the supper on the grass, for an out-of-door tea was always the crowning joy of the day. The land literally flowed with milk and honey on such occasions, for the lads were not required to sit at table, but allowed to partake of refreshment as they liked freedom being the sauce best beloved by the boyish soul. They availed themselves of the rare privilege to the fullest extent, for some tried the pleasing experiment of drinking mild while standing on their heads, others lent a charm to leapfrog by eating pie in the pauses of the game, cookies were sown broadcast over the field, and apple turnovers roosted in the trees like a new style of bird.”
I would consider the Alcott quote ambiguous. The land wasn’t literally flowing; the kids were allowed to eat their picnic wherever they wanted and it sounds like there may have been some spillage. In fact, I think it requires the idea of literally in both senses to get the joke, as it were.
Here’s a question for you. “I fought with Tom.”
Are Tom and I enemies or allies?
It should mean the same thing as figuratively, when you think about it. It’s a shame though, because I can’t think of a good synonym for its actual meaning. “Actually” is close.
Its ambiguity is exactly what disproves the notion that one could never be confused by the use of the word; that’s what I was going for. This is exactly my point regarding the word–if we knew that it could only mean “word for word,” there would be less confusion. Thank you.
I disagree. If literally had only the traditional meaning then it would not have made sense in the sentence. Alcott was relying on the two meanings to create the image of boys who ate so messily it was as if the land itself were coated in food rather than what would have happened in reality, which is that there were a lot of crumbs and maybe a damp patch where something had spilled.
And what about Tom? Is he on or off my christmas card list?
I’m not going to delve into Alcott’s use of the language. I stated much earlier that for art’s sake, I think it’s fine to use the word to add color. But in “everydayspeak,” it can confuse someone to use the word. The point was made continually that I (we) could not find a real world example of someone being confused by the usage of the word, and I provided two examples of a professional being confused.
Re: you and Tom, yes that can be confusing as well. There are many examples in the English language of phrases that can be confusing–which I would rather decrease than increase. That’s just me, though.