this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
1215 points (98.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

7548 readers
2359 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

I wonder, why is 'literally' so special?

Someone steps out into unexpectedly cold weather and says, "It's freezing out here." But it's not below freezing.

Someone that hasn't eaten all day takes a bite and says, "I was starving, this is the best burger I've ever tasted!" They weren't really starving, and they probably didn't just rank every burger they've eaten.

We exaggerate and/or use words incorrectly for the effect so often, people are constantly using words "incorrectly" but then they say, "I'm literally dead right now." and dictionaries change their definitions and people point out semantics. It's like literally is figuratively magic.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

It’s almost like language is radically democratic and words only mean what we largely agree they mean, with fluctuating cases based on particular contexts.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Yeah, somehow "literally" is the only word in a figure of speech that cannot be part of the figure at all! They are so smart for pointing that out

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

"Freezing" is an exaggeration of "cold", just like "starving" is an exaggeration of "hungry". It's "a lot of X".

"Literally" is not an exaggeration, it's the opposite of "figuratively". It's "-X".

Those are two entirely different things. But of course inflammable means flammable.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

“Literally” is not an exaggeration

Correct, it's an "intensifier"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And "terrific" and "awesome" are exaggerations of "scary".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yes. Am I meant to add anything here?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, it's just another example that words' usages and meanings can change a lot, even flip, over time. A new usage can literally spread like a ~~~~virus~~~~ meme and become the meaning - at least to all intensive porpoises.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I know, it's completely normal. Doesn't mean I have to like a particular usage.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Words, usually.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Incorrect.

Freezing
"Freezing is a phase transition in which a liquid turns into a solid when its temperature is lowered below its freezing point."

Starvation
"Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy intake, below the level needed to maintain an organism's life."

You are literally wrong, and I will accept a 1-page apology written in MLA format before the end of this week.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I honestly do not see the contradiction. "Very cold" -> liquid turns to solid. "Very hungry" -> severe deficiency.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then how do you explain iron, which freezes below 2,800 Fahrenheit, hm? 2,800 Fahrenheit is hot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Very" and "a lot" are subjective.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You cannot be "freezing" unless you are a bloodsicle. This follows from the exact definition of the word. Words have meanings, you know. If people can just say whatever they want, then what is the point of communication?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What part of that definition implies "bloodsicle"?

Not to mention how is that an answer to what I said?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Thank you for being so very elaborate, that cleared everything up. (It didn't.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I think "literally" should be an exception because it's the only word to clarify when we're not speaking figuratively. It's like making your safe word "fuck me harder".