This is silly. The meaning of words comes from the way people use them, it's not set in stone, and it changes over time.
Awful and awesome used to be synonyms. Egregious used to mean remarkably good, until people started to use it (likely ironically) to mean remarkably bad. Many words we use today don't mean the same thing that they used to.
Those examples are not analogous to "literally."
"Awful" and "awesome" describe something as eliciting awe. "Egregious" describes something that stands out. None of these adjectives inherently carry a positive or negative meaning so it's not very remarkable that the meaning evolved based on connotations. You can still use "awful" or "awfully" as a neutral adverb even today.
"Literally" is different because it means the following description is not a literary device. It's wrong because "literally" expands to "figuratively literally" which simplifies to "figuratively" which means the thing being described
is a literary device so you should just go with your initial figure of speech (whatever follows your use of "literally") instead of trying to use "not a figure of speech, but actually a figure of speech" as a figure of speech to describe your figure of speech.
1. He's literally butthurt.
2. He's figuratively literally butthurt.
3. He figuratively butthurt.
4. He's butthurt.
Imagine someone thinking about this so much. Have I literally ruined the thread?
