> It doesn't seem to conventional-minded people that they're conventional-minded. It just seems to them that they're right. Indeed, they tend to be particularly sure of it.
Exactly! Like for instance, the vast majority of people, who believe they can objectively identify mindless orthodoxies, while somehow remaining immune to them.
I think the trick is to distinguish "that's an unorthodox idea" from "you are violating the orthodoxy". For instance, here are (relatively anodyne?) statements, the first being rare to hear but unpoliced (unorthodox), and the other being one where I've had people, in person, prompt me to explain it so that they and their friend can laugh at me (violating the orthodoxy).
a) The exception in the 13th amendment for criminals is bad, currently used to legally shield slavery in American prisons, and should be repealed.
b) All Americans, including minors of all ages, should be allowed to vote.
Seeing the difference in reactions to them has sharpened my conception of precisely what orthodoxy is, and what social purpose it serves.
[As a historical note, Nazis displayed art they hated at prominent museums, specifically to encourage people to mock it for how terrible it was (of course, almost universally art created by Jews). Ben Shapiro would be out of a job if the people he mocks were _actually_ silenced -- not because he'd have nothing else to talk about, but because the format would be boring. Same for Chapo Trap House, etc etc etc.]
I don't know if the distinction is necessarily clear here - I think the idea b is so jarring to people is they can immediately visualize the edge case - where a baby is voting. I know you've probably got more nuance to that belief, but a naive person probably immediately thinks about it.
I'm not sure you've successfully identified an orthodoxy there because, also, I've never heard anyone defend the current voting age with any vigor.
If people defend it with vigor, it's probably something still up for grabs in American discussion, and not really an orthodoxy. You'll see this in modern, fresher orthodoxies, where even though most people would disagree it is assumed the audience doesn't need to be told why it's right, or even that it's right
Exactly! Like for instance, the vast majority of people, who believe they can objectively identify mindless orthodoxies, while somehow remaining immune to them.