Why is "literally" literally the most brutally raped

>>9684695
not as raped and abused as "like".

>>9684702
Nah. You're dim.

>>9684714
Like, what do you mean?

(You)
Y
o
u
)

>>9684695
Why is hyperbole the least subtly blown and bothered figure?

>>9684737

>>9684695

An interesting question actually.

I think it's the result of a society without abstract meanings. In a society where empiricism is taken as a given, and empirical truths are considered the only truths, the 'literal' meaning of things can be the only true meaning. In effect, we have substituted the rhetorical use of the word 'truly' with 'literally', because literal or surface-level meaning has become synonymous with truth. It is a reflection of the modern epistemological methodology.

>>9684831
Everything is layered in irony.

>>9684695
reminder that 'literally' is used as a colloquial term for emphasis at least as far back as Joyce's 'Dubliners', which makes that particular usage over 100 years old and so acceptable by the standards of pretty much anyone who actually knows what they're talking about and who isn't just whining about 'the degradation of language' to sound smart

>>9684855

Can you elaborate how that relates to what I said?

>>9684876
>because literal or surface-level meaning has become synonymous with truth
Hard to be honest when you have to keep up the facade of constant irony and sarcasm, nothing genuine.

File: 1497985558694.png (187KB, 727x582px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 727x582px

how do I rape a word Tbh I don't know how to do it

Why am I so unappeasably horny skill the goddamn time?

>>9684902
pusyposter, is that you?

stop watching porn and stop masturbating

>>9684802
That light is making her look tanner and unappealing.

File: 1e08aa.gif (2KB, 50x50px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 50x50px

>>9684695

Is that literally in your picture?

>>9684902
don't drink redbull, that shit will put ur t through the roof and make u hard at the first ass jiggle

It's because modern "people" need a word to signify sincerity or conviction, because everything they say is devoid of merit and honesty. Ironically, the word has now lost meaning and is now used for insincere purposes, making both the speakers and their speech wholly worthless

>>9684885

What I'm talking about is unconnected to the ironic-sincere dichotomy. I still don't see how that relates to what I said.

>>9684932
uh oh

good to see Hypersincerity is taking hold.

>>9685005
Do you by any chance suffer from autism?

>>9685016

It's pretty likely I do. Nonetheless, I still don't think you understood what I meant.

word meanings change, you're not superior

>>9685189
Incorrect. You are inferior.

>>9684990
>>9684831
Mainly these.

>>9685189
Is retarded.

>>9684695
The term 'literally' is generally used as a sarcastic hyperbole, get over it.

File: 1440020920822.jpg (25KB, 300x296px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x296px

>working at an internship
>one of the other interns says "literally" all the time, I mean maybe once every 3rd or 4th sentence
>in an act of extraordinary cruelty and pettiness, I begin keeping a count of how many times she says it per day

people should use more emphasizers like veritable desu

>>9685716

>sarcastic
>hyperbole

If you've listened to any young person or basic idiot talk and use "literally" in context, you'd know that there is zero sarcastic or hyperbolic influence/emphasis to their discourse.

>>9685751
Are you retarded? It's literally all hyperbole.

>>9685751
What an embarassment.

>>9685716
>>9685189
these types of "people" accelerate the degeneracy of culture
descriptivists are a cancer on the world

>>9685751
Using a word to mean its opposite is inherently ironic, and this irony is purely used for hyperbolic effect.
I'm sure you would never call someone out for using the word 'awful' as a negative.

>>9685785
>>9685787

At no point did I say that the word was being properly used in the context mentioned. It's a conversational turn-off that "young people and basic idiots" use in attempt to spice up their diction, when in fact they're doing the opposite.

>what is textual interpretation
Jesus, I swear you people get dumber and dumber by the day.

>>9685789
You are G E N U I N E L Y retarded, and it's clear as day you're new as fuck, without any knowledge of etymology

>>9685803
What an embarassment.

>>9685189
But we're losing a word. If "literally" comes to just mean "very" we've lost the concept.

>>9685803
That is your opinion of them, though, as it's clear you've made up your opinion of them before they ever used the word (granted, with probably some justification).
But to suggest that your criticism of their use of the word is anything but pedantic is laughable.

>>9685814
Words can mean more than one thing.
You should rather look at it as "we're gaining a word."

>>9685799

>Using a word to mean its opposite is inherently ironic

It's been beaten to a point where it's surpassed hyperbolic enhancement and now acts as a means of conveying a sense of significance or merit to what one is saying, as in >>9684990

>>9685827
>[citation needed]
And what the fuck do you think the point of hyperbole is?

>>9684695
People intentionally misuse it for emphasis.

>>9685820
But it won't mean more than one thing. It's not like a word taking on a second, separate meaning, it's a word coming to mean the opposite of its original meaning. I'm a descriptivist but this seems like an exception to the rule

>>9685836
So you are willfully ignoring that that isn't happening, then?

>>9685836
What, you think people will look at you funny for using the word correct?

>>9685846
Give it some time. These things take hundreds of years

>>9685855
>correct

So you're not a descriptivist?

>>9685805
even retards listened to public school teachers enough to distinguish using verbal irony and this sad trite use of language

>>9685872
What an embarassment.

>>9685869
I am indifferent, and even archaic words are used today.
You know, you can stil use the word 'awful' as something related to awe.

>>9685831

>[citation needed]
Have an actual face-to-face conversation with the average person in their low-20's and younger, and observe. There's your citation. I know leaving the echo chamber can be hard sometimes, but there's more out there, I promise.

>And what the fuck do you think the point of hyperbole is?
When exaggeration is used in situations when it's not warranted, it completely loses its effect. Hence, "literally" no longer conveys hyperbole as much as it does unironic sincerity.

>>9685872
Good one, leave.

>>9685881
What an embarassment

>>9685880
>You know, you can stil use the word 'awful' as something related to awe.

And no one will understand your meaning. Let me ask, how often do you not have to clarify yourself when you use "awful" in this way? Ever?

>>9685881
Dude, i know exactly what people you're talking about, but i'm not some pedantic dilettante who would care about someone using rethorical devices correctly, just because the word was used 'incorrectly'.
And who are you ti decide if it's warranted or not?
If it is used as a hyperbole, and it does just that, it's warranted.

>>9685889
I don't, because i understand the difference between written text and colloquial speech.

>>9685889
>no one
"Okay"

>>9685905
Written text? Why would people be any more likely to know the (now-obscure) original meaning of "awful" if it was written?

>>9685899
>who are you to decide if it's warranted
>I can say it's warranted
holy... I want more

>>9685912
If a hyperbole is used as an hyperbole it's warranted.
Are you just acting out now?

>>9685911
Is your angle "if most people won't recognize something it doesn't exist"?
Because then you will lose.
As long as a word can be used and understood in the right context, it still exists, and that is literally all that matters.

>>9685846
>>9685869
It's happened to "awesome" in a few decades. People still know what you mean, but it sounds cringey.

>>9685925
But you would never cringe when reading the word in a poem, right?
And your personal biased towards words and your cultural associations are on you.

>>9685919
>Is your angle "if most people won't recognize something it doesn't exist"?

I don't really understand what you mean by this, my angle is that by gradual overusage "literally" with just be a synonym for "very", and we already have "very". I'm a descriptivist, I just think it's a bad change

>>9685938
>And your personal biased towards words and your cultural associations are on you.

Language is cultural associations and cultural associations only, unless you believe the English language is written in the stars.

>>9685899

>And who are you to decide if it's warranted or not?
>Goes on to explain when it's warranted

>I'm not some pedantic dilettante
No, you're worse. I think you need to get off /lit/ for a while and embrace reality, I think the whole intellectual highground thing is getting to your head. Seriously, the density is insane.

>>9685961
You are a lost cause if you think its original meaning will actually be lost, everytime someone uses it they are aware of its literal definition.
Language is cultural association (for the most part), but you're doing the mistake of acting as if your personal associations are universal ones.

The changes in words give more room for poetic freedom and vagueness, which is a good thing: you never lose words, you only gain new meanings (aswell as the old ones, if this wasn't painfully obvious).

>>9685969
How's your reading comprehension btw?>"Intellectual highground" coming from someone literally pissed from someone using a word "wrong"
The autism here is astounding.

>>9685969
Also, i would love for you to argue how a rethorical device used for its purpose is not warranted.

>>9685915
>>9685997
two different people called you on your contradictory nature
we all err from time to time
just back up consider maybe you are the in the wrong here

>>9686033
Point them out, i can't see anyone who did what you said.

Why was the chick removed? :(

>>9685744
And how many instances have you counted so far?