how often do you encounter doublespeak?

Every time I turn to politics. Our ex justice minister once said:

Surveillance is freedom

I'm not kidding. Word for word, that's what he said.

Which country? Orwell?
Edit: NewZealand apparently
- Just going to leave this here…
- Denmark actually. It's a couple of years ago he said it.

I wouldn't know. I take most things that people say at face-value.

I don't have the time or energy to interpret double-meanings. Say what you mean & mean what you say.

People get mad at you when you do that. I’m actually shocked at how many do.
- Yeah, they might get mad, but that's on them. If they said what they actually meant, things would go a lot smoother.
  Communicate clearly instead of expecting me to do codebreaking.

Any examples in particular?

Yeah, any example will do.
- That was more for you to provide an example so we know exactly what you are looking for?

I assume you mean just subtly mentioning something without outright saying it. That's just a social skill, since some things are better said that way.

On the other hand, equivocation is the bastion of cowards and simpletons.
Whilst this has some truth to it, it is a gross oversimplification
- Then, what do you mean with double speak

What’s that “Kids Online Safety Bill” thing in the USA right now?

All the time. ~~Discourse analysis ruined my life.~~

In special, the sort of doublespeak where someone lists something as a bonus of whatever the person defends, but as a malus for what he doesn't like. Often through different and partially overlapping words, such as one program being "traditional and tested" and another "archaic and outdated". Or one politician being "in sync with the voters" and another being "a demagogue".

However on the internet I feel like doublespeak is becoming less and less of a concern, because willingful stupidity is often more efficient, as it capitalises on Brandolini's Law.

In special, the sort of doublespeak where someone lists something as a bonus of whatever the person defends, but as a malus for what he doesn’t like. Often through different and partially overlapping words, such as one program being “traditional and tested” and another “archaic and outdated”. Or one politician being “in sync with the voters” and another being “a demagogue”.
Oh yeah, I hate that. I find it sad that there's a market for that kind of content. It's not the only way, you could just say the program is 15 years old, or the politician appeals to a much larger fraction of voters than whatever specific naive measure would suggest they should.
- It’s not the only way, you could just say the program is 15 years old, or the politician appeals to a much larger fraction of voters than whatever specific naive measure would suggest they should.
  That requires us to focus on the objective matters. We can't do that. We need to wallow in all that precious, oh so precious, subjectivity. But we can't show it, because then we can't claim "it's facts", and we're opening room for disagreement.
  In other words this kind of doublespeak is backed by another type of doublespeak: disguising the subjective as objective. You see the same underlying phenomenon behind the usage of the word "toxic".
  by "we" I mean "people in general", not necessarily you and me.

Where I live we call it "Minnesota nice". As a transplant I can't speak it well, so I have no idea what anyone thinks of me. It's pretty frustrating.

Look at their actions, not their words specifically.
It's a culture where being unkind is particularly unacceptable, not specifically where you're not allowed to be honest or forthright.
You're allowed to not like someone, but telling someone you dislike them is needlessly unkind, so you just politely decline to interact with them.
You'd "hate to intrude", or "be a bother". If it's pushed, you'll "consider it and let them know".
Negative things just have to be conveyed in the kindest way possible, not that they can't be conveyed.
- Perfectly put.

I'm not even sure what is ment by that.Do you mean like repeating yourself in another language when talking to groups?

https://www.igpub.com/doublespeak/#:~:text=He%20wrote%20a%20famous%20essay,the%20social%20dangers%20of%20doublespeak.
- William Lutz is an American linguist who specializes in the use of plain language and the avoidance of doublespeak (deceptive language). He wrote a famous essay “The World of Doublespeak” on this subject as well as the book Doublespeak, which described the four different types of doublespeak (euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook, and inflated language) and the social dangers of doublespeak.
- Thanks for this!
doeblespeak is a term from 1984 by george orwell that refers to being able to believe 2 contradicting viewpoints at once. (eg. War is peace)

Not being hyperbolic, but almost every single time I have to speak with or am spoken to by a manager/GM at work. HR at all large companies I have ever worked for as well.

I work for/with a religiously-affiliated charitable organization, so doublespeak is pretty constant. Worse, not only do people use it but they also police the speech of those around them.

Every time I've talked to any manager or supervisor I've ever had.

It's ubiquitous.

In the 1984-sense, daily at work.

Mostly in a corporate setting.

All the time at work lol