What does "literally" mean?

[Linus Van Pelt]

Obviously it's not a major problem, but I don't really like the non-literal use of "literally". It's handy to have a device for indicating explicitly that one isn't speaking figuratively, and that distinct role is lost if it just functions like another intensifier. And it's not always completely clear which sense is being used if the adjective modified isn't something outrageous.

In domains other than language, we easily recognize that the combination of an innate biological system, widespread variation and continual change in corresponding non-innate behaviours, and a history of dubious snobbery-based criticism doesn't entail that no practice can be criticized for any reason whatsoever. Take, for example, food: no-one would say that the combination of the innateness of the digestive system, the continual history of changing eating habits, and the stigmatization of certain foods as low-class means that a food or a diet should never be criticized as unhealthy or tasting bad. Analogously there's no inconsistency in rejecting curmudgeonly opposition to change for its own sake while still acknowledging that linguistic changes can have advantages and disadvantages.