In Serbia, script diversity remains the norm, whereby Serbian is routinely written in both the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. This is not free of political contestation. Metadiscourses construct Cyrillic as the authentic script and central to ethnoidentity or, alternatively, as indexing dangerous nationalism, conservatism and Russian-leaning politics. On the flip side, one metadiscourse associates Latin with modernity and progress, but others associate it with unwelcomed Western influence. But how do individuals themselves understand script preferences? This paper takes a folk linguistic approach to investigate whether the metalinguistic talk of Serbian individuals about script preferences is indeed informed by political metadiscourse. The data concern not only the stated preferences of individuals but also, borrowing from theory of mind, metatalk about how people explain the script preferences "of others." The paper shows that the ideological oppositionality presupposed in metadiscourse tends not to be validated in metalinguistic talk, reminding us to be cognisant of chasms between societal-level metadiscourse and the lived experiences of individuals, and to avoid assumptions about the reach and impact of critical metadiscourse.