ɯᴉuoʇuɐ

I’m not interested in fighting you either, I was just asking, perhaps the interesting conversation still could’ve occurred. (Admittedly that other reply to you is really good and extensive, and I wouldn’t have much to add after that.)

What would the conversation be about exactly? Legitimacy of language institutions, or?

Dictionaries can also note hyperbolic (and other “deformed”) uses of words, especially when commonplace, I see no problem with that. You have some odd expectations from dictionaries.

And then the speakers from insular communities get told to fuck off with their special definitions, or they’re so persistent that the new definition catches on. Either way, problem solved.

The word “literally” still serves its old purpose just fine, along with the new one.

They all work the same way. Some institution saying otherwise doesn’t chance that.

Here’s a very horny variant of this idea (no idea how it counts as SFW by Youtube standards)

Ain’t is just a shifted dialectal pronunciation of aren’t

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ain't

Also relevant to the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster’s_Third_New_International_Dictionary#Treatment_of_the_contraction_'Ain’t’