Because both meanings are opposites, literally is a more specialized form of homonym called a contronym. Unlike a contronym such as clip where it’s to tell whether the speaker is talking about clipping things together or clipping stuff off of something based on their use in a sentence, literally and figuratively fit into any sentence the same way. In any case where the speaker’s words could be interpreted ambiguously to be literal or figurative and they add literally to clarify they can’t because someone could mistake their literal literally meaning to be a figurative one.

That means the literal use of literally is functionally lost, and for what? So folks have another way to exaggerate? I don’t care if a language evolves, but if it’s going to I think it should evolve in such a way that expressing certain ideas isn’t lost, especially if there isn’t anything real to be gained. I literally don’t understand why people are so gun-ho to defend using literally figuratively.

irregardless

"Inflammable" means flammable!

You're fighting the tide. There's never been a point in time where language had fixed, immutable definitions. It's always been transient, no matter what you learned, and it's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just how communication and culture work.

But there is a general definition. That's the point isn't it? Its a bit on the reader to get with that.

For example, if I say something about corn you should know what im talking about immediately. I shouldn't have to specify the yellow vegetable also called maize just because a thousand years ago the word meant something else.