IIRC from English class, some double negatives are considered grammatically correct. But when I read them, I usually have to pause to really determine what the author is saying.
A frequent double negative in print and speech is “not uncommon” and I guess it is used to make a point. Personally I think it is sloppy and simply using the word “common” makes more sense to me.
What are your opinions on double negatives?
I know guests can’t search, but we debated this about 3 weeks ago:
For what it’s worth, I still don’t think “not uncommon” and “common” are synonyms.
Nope, not sloppy – allowing for a subtlety of nuance that not everyone has a problem with.
I’m with you there. In my mind, saying something is “common” means it occurs more frequently than something that is “not uncommon.”
I never weighed in on the other thread, but I agree with **Giles **-- some double negatives have a subtle difference to their counterparts that makes them a better choice. I am something of a grammar Nazi, but I will use terms like “not unlike” and “not unattractive” when I am looking for that very subtle difference. “Not uncommon” and “common” are two totally different meanings – “not uncommon” is more along the lines of saying “it happens, not often enough to say commonly, but not so uncommonly that it is rare” – kind of like the Farkcliche of “today’s 400 animals in a trailer brought to you by” headlines. It’s not a common occurrence, by any stretch of the imagination, but it isn’t exactly unheard of either.
While your views are not common they are also, sadly, not uncommon.
I see what you did there. 
To belabor the point, let me rephrase that two ways:
…a subtlety of nuance that everyone doesn’t have a problem with.
…a subtlety of nuance that nobody has a problem with.
Eliminating or moving a negative does not necessarily leave the sentence unchanged in meaning.
Those things are not double negatives, they are examples of a figure of speech called “litotes,” which is commonly used to add greater subtlety to language, and not uncommonly to add a certain ironic emphasis.
True, but I already demonstrated the point about double negatives in the linked thread above. “I never said I wouldn’t” doesn’t equal “I said I would.”
Such a usage is not incorrect, and it’s not without its legitimate uses.
But if very many readers would have to stop and think about what the writer is saying, or might easily misinterpret it, it might not be a bad idea for the writer to find a clearer way of making his or her point.
The double negatives that English teachers (quite rightly) get vexed about are not the ‘not uncommon’ type, they’re things like:
“I didn’t do nothing, honest!”
“There ain’t never anything on TV”
“It don’t mean nothing to me”
Where the properly-interpreted meaning is the opposite of the speaker’s intent.