Example -- Joe says about Larry, "He's really a baaad dude." The appropriate response is to determine the context of the remark, not assume the word is being misused.
He is also explaining that the dictionaries that have updated "literally" to show this usage are not dictating anything, they merely reflect the way the word is being commonly used.
Yes, I know, I read it. My objection was only to the article's misleading title.
There are two ways to "misuse" "literally": - You believe it means "figuratively" or "metaphorically". Like: "The hyperloop is a revolutionary technology, it is literally an iPhone". Using it in this way is plain wrong, no matter if you are descriptionist or perscriptionist. "It doesn't mean what you think it means." - You use it as hyperbole. "I had such a hangover, my head literally exploded". Well, it certainly didn't explode for real, it's clear you're exaggerating. Everyone knows it's a metaphor, you just want to reinforce it. a la "Really guys, it was almost as bad as if it really did explode". This is not wrong, but people often don't get it (when they're smart enough to know the difference, but don't pick up the hyperbole) (- Or you could use it ironically and mix it up on purpose. However, people probably won't get that either.)
Guess what, though? Usage is defined by what people think is correct, including how they argue about that usage and what it "should" be.
If you embrace descriptivism, you don't get to reject prescriptive arguments as "wrong" on the basis that ZOMG, there are no rules. It's like saying a policy arguments is "wrong" because a poll reveals that people exist who don't agree with that argument - you're not even talking in the right context.
Or, put another way, if enough people continue to spell "past" as "passed" ("I went passed the sign..."), then eventually one of the definitions of "passed" will include "alternate spelling of 'past'". But someone isn't wrong to say, "That should be 'past', not 'passed'.", even if some people are spelling it wrong.
