This is my favorite way to deal with management.

So you want me to disable a safety feature to help speed up production?

It only works if the other party clearly understands the reference.

Know your audience.

/post [mic drop]

Its going to get funnier the longer he avoids answering lol. In my mind, he could be referring to anything from double speak (doublethink), double entendres, puns, double meanings, etc. He needs to show some of his thinking so we can answer intelligently

1984 was doublethink, not doublespeak

I call that being high as fuck

I suspect a lot of people make the mistake of seeking out analysis, but not stopping to consider if they actually understand more after reading it, as well.

Yup. Or stopping to analyse the analysis, it isn't just because someone analysed it that it'll be necessarily worth a damn.

from a writer’s perspective that gives an opportunity to make money by producing giant quantities of boilerplate text.

Similarities with "self-help" are not a mere coincidence.

Can you give an example?

Sure. Made up and a bit forced, but it should be typical enough to highlight what I mean:

• [Alice] Bob, I think that you should cut your hair.
• [Bob] Alice, this is toxic. I didn't ask your opinion!

Bob clearly doesn't like uncalled advice. That's fine for me, I don't like it either, and it would be also fine if Bob said "hey Alice, I don't like this, stahp". But that's still someone (a subject) not liking something - in other words a subjective matter. It's an opinion and it should be treated as such.

And, yet by labelling the behaviour "toxic", Bob makes it look like it's something about the object (the behaviour) thus objective, something intrinsically true, shielded against the criticism that an opinion would get. But it's still an opinion, so you can't even criticise it as a true/false statement - you can't "prove" an opinion.

Note that even the description that you've provided hints this duplicity: hostility is objective, but "negative emotional" is subjective.

(I didn't include "toxic masculinity" because I didn't really think about it. Plus as you said it's a fixed expression, those tend to vary in meaning too much from the component words. )

My understanding was it was a conceptually-poor language that artificially constrained one's cognitive faculties through the nexus of a limited language/vocabulary emphasizing economy of expression. Sort of like a programming language with very few keywords and only ones that were absolutely necessary to receive and nominally participate in a minimal discourse.

Edit: I think this is actually Newspeak I'm contemplating as opposed to doublespeak. Doublespeak seems to refer to intentionally ambiguous language that obfuscates meaning and emotional content and usually for a political purpose. Like calling unintentional war victims "collateral damage" to reduce the bad publicity from one's war efforts. The wrongfully-dead victims are hidden behind what sounds like oblique accounting or financial jargon.