Ok so how does a cancer kill its host?
It grows until it consumes so many nutrients that the other living cells don’t get enough. The host literally starves even if he eats plentifully.
The same applies for the US: The billionaires are not only hoarding wealth, but by doing so they’re crippling the economy for workers and everybody besides themselves.
Oooo, sick burn!! I don’t know if I’ll recover from that!
My point is that I believe OP was using the word “literally” to mean what it literally means, and not just using it for emphasis as it is so often used these days. They may still be wrong, but they did not misuse the word.
You can only rationally make that argument if you are claiming that “society” is a biological organism, like an amoeba or a babboon, presumably evolved from other common ancestors of all life on earth. When you can tell me the scientific name of this organism, and what organs have been affected by tumors, we can start talking about the literality of the “cancer” OP referred to.
As the underlying logic was metaphorical, “literally” was used as figurative hyperbole, not literality.
You are refuting an argument that I did not make.
Edit to add: OP says cancer can be used literally to refer to billionaires, you say it cannot. One of you must be wrong, but neither is misusing the word “literally.”
I am refuting the argument that would need to be made in order to support your position. I clearly specified that necessity in my refutation. “Cancer” and “billionaire” would have to be synonymous, not analogous, for “literally” to have been used correctly.
What type of cancer are billionaires? Carcinomas are cancers of epithelial tissue, but “society” does not have epithelial tissue. Sarcomas are cancers of musculoskeletal and connective tissues, but “society” does not have bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. Myelomas are cancers of the plasma cells in bone marrow, but again, “society” doesn’t have bones. Leukemias are cancers of the various blood cells, but society doesn’t have “blood”. Lymphomas are cancers of the lymphatic system, but society doesn’t have one of those either.
In fact, “society” does not have biological tissues or organs that could even become literally cancerous. (Members of society do, indeed, have these various organs and tissues, but no member of society has been diagnosed with a “Bezosma” or “Muskaemia”.)
“Billionaires are cancer” is a metaphor. “Billionaires are literally cancer” is simply a false statement, unless “literally” was used, incorrectly, as hyperbole.
That is my point. Literally can be used correctly in a statement that is not correct, and my reading of the original post is that was OP’s intention. They did not misuse the word “literally.”
I’m not debating the meaning of the word cancer.
So, billionaires are not “literally” cancer, but “billionaires are literally cancer” is supposedly a correct use of “literally”?
This is generally true, but in this particular sentence, the reason the sentence is false is specifically because of the meaning of “literally”.
“The sky is literally purple” is a correct use of “literally” in a false statement. This is what you are trying to argue.
“Billionaires are a cancer” is a correct, figurative statement.
“Billionaires are literally cancer” is false specifically because “literally” does not mean “figuratively”.