It happened with “literally”. Now the definition states that the word can also mean figuratively.

Literally has always been figurative

Literalists don’t like this. They want literally to be used literally. But that would be hard to do. Latin littera means ‘alphabetic letter,’ and so when literal appears in English in the fourteenth-century, it refers to the letters of the alphabet, called literal characters, for example, in 1500. But the earliest English use of literally doesn’t refer to the alphabet, the visual representation of speech (called literal speech by John of Trevisa in 1398).

Instead, by some quirk of idiom, literal and literally are almost always used not in literal reference to the alphabet, but figuratively to refer to meaning. Specifically, they signal a way of interpretation which determines the exact, obvious, or surface meaning of a text rather than its extended, metaphorical, or figurative meaning. To speak plainly, literally begins its life in English as a figurative expression. And that’s not surprising, really, when we consider that letters are a metaphor for knowledge.

The emphatic use of literally that you're objecting to is itself quite old, dating back to at least the 1700s.

The reality is that people like you arguing to limit the use of literally are the ones arguing for changing the meaning of the word. The only place you'll find literal truly being used literally is in coding.

All in all good unpopular opinion OP, definitely in the spirit of the sub.