>>149
Maybe this is bait for a language game, I never understood the issue people have with this.
Ok, plenty of people tend to overuse the term "literally" when the factual meaning of their full sentence is actually "figuratively" - however, people rarely seem to consider the (obvious) fact that "literally" is used as hyperbole for additional emphasis. It's usually clear from the context that the writer still intends the non-literal meaning to be understood. In fact, it's probably extremely unlikely that someone uses the term "literally" incorrectly, but rather it's much more likely that they deliberately use it subversively to exaggerate their statement.

The use of the term "figuratively" in the sense of:
"They're figuratively on fire."
Only serves to belittle the main premise of the statement. It's like saying "They're on fire, but not really haha it's just an expression", drawing attention away from the metaphor/simile/idk, the opposite of exaggeration. Why would teenage girls want to apply such a tone to their words? surely, they would be better off just saying "They're on fire" (which is easier to say than "They're literally on fire", anyway).

It's not like sentences have to make absolute factual sense, we can mix and mash metaphors and warp meanings without breaking understanding, it's part of the joy of speech. It's why we can stay stuff like "This sentence is false" or "I have no words". Meaning is greater than simple definitions.

Even if you disagree with that, keep in mind that there is no correct definition of a word. Language is constantly evolving, with plenty of definitions inverting over time as popular "mis-usage" becomes standard usage. And 'literally' has been used as a dramatic intensifier for centuries; see any of the number of examples available online that I'm too lazy to add here.

Anyway, what that means for you, >>149, is that you might be autistic.