We are not bemused

[Dadalus]

No I suppose not, I just find it grating, though its no biggie.

'That'll learn em'

[selmiak]

then it is literally the last straw...

[Radiant]

Is it any worse than, e.g., "this really is the last straw!" when in reality there are no straws involved?

Ironically, yes.

[Stupot]

Thinking about it, it seems that the word 'literally', rather than being used as a replacement for 'figuratively' is as actually just being used figuratively.

But there is a whole class of words (literally, actually, virtually, practically, essentially, basically) and they are all misused regularly in various ways.  I'm not sure why 'literally' is the one we are least forgiving of, probably because, like, literally everyone does it.

[Andail]

Is it any worse than, e.g., "this really is the last straw!" when in reality there are no straws involved?

This is exactly my point! Just because a word can be used figuratively to intensify a statement, should the definition of the word be adjusted to reflect this irregular use?

My gripe is that MW added the meaning 'virtually' to 'literally' when the inherent definition of the word is exactly the opposite.

When you look up 'really' in a dictionary, do you also find the definition "not at all"?
Because when I say "You really suck", that person may not at all be engaged in the activity of sucking anything.

[Intense Degree]

The misuse of literally is definitely rife where I am. The Jamie Oliver example above is one thing, but it is not at all uncommon to hear something like I heard one girl say to a friend last week; "OMG I was so embarrassed, I literally died!". Oh no you didn't madam!

[Snarky]

"Virtually" and "literally" (in its original sense) are not exact opposites, if such a thing even exists in language. "Literally" is usually contrasted with "figuratively", but whether this works as an opposite depends on the context.

I'm not convinced M-W's second entry is the right way to describe the extended sense of "literally", but the usage note takes care of any objection I might have.

And for "really", the first definition in most dictionaries is some variation on "in actual truth or fact". So any sense that allows it to be used to describe something that is NOT in actual truth or fact violates this definition. And in actual truth and fact, the OED provides this as the second sense: "Truly, indeed; positively. In later use also as an intensifier: very, thoroughly."

And yes, if a word is routinely and widely used in a way that doesn't adhere to a dictionary's definition, then the dictionary should either update that definition or add an additional one, while noting any controversy over the use. Otherwise it wouldn't be very useful as a dictionary, would it?

I don't think the issue here is really about dictionary definitions, but whether there's something wrong with using "literally" as an intensifier for metaphorical expressions. But the thing is, all expressions are metaphorical, deep (or not so deep) down. (That sentence, for example, had at least four metaphors.) http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011

Using "literally" to mean "actually, not figuratively" is itself a metaphor, an extension of the original meaning "letter by letter/word by word". http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3007

[Andail]

I absolutely agree that dictionaries should be more descriptive than prescriptive, but I think there are definitely cases where you can afford to be a bit more conservative, and that's when
1. you deprive the language of a rather useful function
2. there already exist perfectly good words that have the function in question.

'Literally' is useful in its original definition, to imply that you mean something in its actual sense. I think it's great to have a word that can convey things like "he was literally blinded by her beauty" when he got a teaspoon in his eye because he wasn't paying attention. Ok, bad example but you catch my drift.

The reason for 'literally' spilling over into the 'figuratively' territory isn't because it was needed there, it's because people started to confuse the words and started over-using the former.

Just saying why it bugs me a bit