So in another post where I said that hell can only be figurative to atheists, never literal (in response to someone who said religious types were "making [atheists'] lives a literal hell"), someone replied to say that Websters' disagrees with me. And sure enough, their definition 2 says:

in effect: VIRTUALLY

I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit, a flat-out error. I'm not faulting the person who replied to tell me that — not even gonna bother replying, frankly — but since when does "literally" mean "virtually"? WTF, Merriam-Webster?!?

Advertisement

I have identified this issue as one worthy of outrage. Who's with me? HULK SMASH!!

ETA: Yes, I see the Usage Discussion note about it being acceptable "hyperbole" — still bullshit, M-W.