One is a pitting of a poster, for actions taken on this board that we were chosing to chide them on.
The other is pitting of a large segment of American English speakers and their casual adaptation of language, which while Pit and Counter-Pitable, is a hijack of this thread (which is allowable, don’t get me wrong).
Now, if you, or the others, were pitting a specific POSTER for always using literally as an intensifier, then we’re all good!
That’s ultimately what prescriptivism is - classist gatekeeping. Outside a purely educational context, that’s what it is. Sometimes ageist or racist classism, sometimes merely economic. Here, often it gives an education classism vibe.
What I gathered when they say “pedigree” is that it is the term that has been used the most for the longest time. I’m not sure if that’s classist or not. The other terms are quite neologistic, relatively speaking.
You’d think so - until you investigate and find out that a lot of those kinds of variants are older than you’d think - e.g. saying “aks” for “ask” is actually the older word, but it’s now looked down on as non-standard dialect.
Not saying non-literal “literally” predates literal on, but it would not surprise me if that usage developed within a few decades of the literal one. A very long time ago.
So yes, you might say one kind of dog has an older pedigree than another - say, greyhounds vs great danes. But if they both pre-date the modern era, you’re going to only get laughter from me if you think that makes greyhounds better. Or if you think kennel club breed standards make for better dogs.