Yes yes, language changes over time. I've heard that mantra for decades and I know it. That doesn't mean there aren't language changes that aren't grating when they become fashionable (and hopefully temporary).
For me, "morals" being used as a crude catch-all application of "morality," "ethics," "integrity" or related concepts bothers me. Sentence example: "Maybe if society had morals there wouldn't be so many minorities in prison." 
An even more annoying otherwise-fluent-speaker modification I see is when "conscious" is used to mean "consciousness" and "conscience" interchangeably. Sentence example: "Single mothers on welfare that steal baby formula have no conscious." It sounds like they're saying the shoplifter is not mentally aware of their own actions, not that they're lacking sufficient "morals" to let their baby starve for the sake of Rules-Based Order(tm).
There's others, but those two come up enough recently, with sufficient newness, for me to bring them up here. Some old classic language quirks are so established and entrenched that even though I hate them, bringing them up would likely invite some hatemail and maybe some mystery alt accounts also sending hatemail after that. You know, because they "could care less(sic)" about what I think. 
"she has no conscious" makes me lose my mind. Same with "would of". The education system is beyond terrible. So many adults are borderline illiterate
Extensive misuse of the word "literally" was a thing decades before Parks and Rec ever aired. That's why the character does it, it's poking fun of the fact that so many people use the word incorrectly and have done so for a very long time. In the 90s, there were a pair of recurring characters on MadTV named Judith and Clyde whose bit were doing the exact same thing.
Not everything is the fault of tv shows.