A common task for editors is to make sure that the manuscript in front of them conforms to the rules of English spelling, grammar, usage, and punctuation. For instance, when I encounter the confusion of you and I and you and me, I fix it. (You and I are going to the parking lot because, between you and me, it’s time that Joey learned how to drive.) Even a descriptivist editor probably would edit writings that confused the two. Of course, some editing is a matter of judgment. Just because you can change something doesn’t mean you should. And what’s appropriate in a journal article would be impossible in some fiction.
But some people think that some usage breaks the rules even though that usage has been in place for centuries. For example, people have turned their attention to the word literally, recently. That is, people are pretty upset that literally is being used to mean figuratively. So when peeververein overhear a person in line at a nice restaurant say “I’m literally starving” and their last meal was probably lunch, peeververein grow literally incensed because a well-nourished suburbanite waiting to claim their dinner reservation isn’t really starving. In fact, the speaker was using hyperbole. Like someone might say “He’s late, again. I’m going to kill him” when they aren’t a Mafia hit man and they’re just irked. Or, “I can’t stand it when I hear people say literally when they mean figuratively!” Oh? They can’t? With all the tragedy in the world, this is the hill they want their endurance to die on?
As John McIntyre put it:
It is perfectly reasonable to avoid the hyperbolic literally in much writing; it’s a colloquial use more common in speech. (I don’t use it myself.) But it is nonsense to claim that the people speaking that way are destroying the English language. That sense has been in the language since the eighteenth century, and English is still here.
How do you handle this? Since people have been using literally as a source of hyperbole for hundreds of years, this usage has not sprung fully formed from Facebook comments—even those alleging that the moon landing is a hoax. Besides, look what happened to sanction!
Old English scitan, from Proto-Germanic *skit- (source also of North Frisian skitj, Dutch schijten, German scheissen), from PIE *skei- “to cut, split, divide, separate” (see shed (v.)). The notion is of “separation” from the body (compare Latin excrementum, from excernere “to separate,” Old English scearn “dung, muck,” from scieran “to cut, shear;” see sharn). It is thus a cousin to science and conscience.
If we brought some people back from 3500 B.C.E. who spoke Proto-Indo-European, would they go postal because *skei has turned into conscience, conscious, shed, and shit? So if a word can end up literally going to shit, why are we surprised when literally can become a source of metaphor?
 Of course they would.
 I’ll be glad to discuss that in the comments.
 Of course some of them would. As a bonus, here is the etymology of the word fuck.