See: inversion of the meaning of the word “literally”

That’s a great example of a word being misused. If the way a word is used makes its meaning less clear than before, it’s being misused. Since “literally” can now mean “figuratively,” you don’t know how a person means it without additional information. If a new word came about to mean the opposite of “figuratively,” all well and good, but without it, meaning is being objectively obfuscated. Another word that suffered this fate is “nonplussed,” which means “being so surprised and confused a person doesn’t know how to react,” but is commonly used to mean “unperturbed,” its opposite. Because of this, it’s usually recommended to just not use it at all, because nobody can be sure what it’s supposed to mean.

I was imagining in my example that “green” might be adopted to mean red only in certain contexts, like used ironically or humorously to mean red, not in a way that erased or overrode the word’s general meaning as green. This is to match the symmetry of misused words like gyatt that continue to have their original meaning and use, but get warped into a new meaning through misuse and then adoption of that misuse in a certain context, such as among white children on Fortnite.

As opposed to a complete inversion or change of the meaning of the word such that “green” would no longer mean green anymore but only mean red (this of course could still happen, it just wasn’t the kind of case I was trying to illustrate).