Is the use of the word "literally" correct in the following

Looks correct to me, but I can't/don't want to explain because I'm am pleb.

>>8406426
Yes, it is correct. Let's end the thread there

>>8406528
>>8406532
I want to know why it is correct.
"Safe for work" literally means "safe to browse in the workplace." How can it be okay to say that it does *not* literally mean what the words literally mean?

>>8406543
The misunderstanding here is that just because something is deemed "sfw" (meaning it's not porn/gore/whatever) does not automatically mean that you can browse it in a given workplace without fear of repercussions. There's a discrepancy between what the words literally mean, at face value, and what they're actually worth in the real world.

>>8406543
SFW just means there is no explicit content, it's a symbolic term in itself.

This is maintained by those that follow the rules and by moderators.

There are, however, NSFW images posted by those that do not follow the rules, and not yet removed by moderators that you could possibly see at work making it not safe.

Further, just because 4chan has SFW boards doesn't mean you are "safe" to be browsing 4chan at work, I doubt your boss would like that you're shitting away company hours on an online mongolian throat-singing forum.

>>8406584
>There's a discrepancy between what the words literally mean, at face value, and what they're actually worth in the real world.
That's what I mean. Is this discrepancy only seen in sentences using the term "literally," since "literally" specifically does mean to refer to words at face value?
Is there any kind of standardized rule about this? Or name for it?

>>8406528
I am also a pleb but sometimes the English language interests me

>>8406597
I agree, I'm just trying to understand this thing about the word "literally". I'm totally fine with the blue board / red board system 4chan has already.

>>8406597
>>8406625
Sorry, I should have phrased that differently:
>Does this discrepancy present this grammatical misunderstanding only in sentences using the term "literally," since "literally" specifically means to refer to words at face value?
>Is there any kind of standardized rule about all this? Or a name for it?

>>8406625
My reply was also an explanation - for those reasons an imageboard is not literally safe to browse at work, nor does the term "SFW" mean it literally safe to view at work.

I feel like I just got baited...

>>8406426
OP is cinematically a retard.

File: Merriam Webster.png (58KB, 769x385px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 769x385px

>>8406656
my bad, I thought definition C in this image was part of the recent expanded-definition of the word and not part of its original definition; that interpreting words literally only meant taking them at face value.
The actual misuse is mostly just limited to people saying "literally" when they actually should be saying "figuratively."