I'm trying to figure out how we corrupted this meaning for, ANTI.
Some seem to think that if we are FOR something, we must by default be AGAINST its opposite or even alternatives. I find that utterly ridiculous.
I don't like olives in my egg salad, but I still like olives, and really don't care if anyone else likes them or not in theirs, and can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would give a damn. I'm not ANTI-OLIVE EGG SALAD, I just prefer mine without olives.
I see all kinds of protests going on with the preface, "ANTI" in front of something aimed at certain people, groups, businesses and more. Upon investigation there is no oppression of the choice being defended, it's usually just that the person or owner, etc. doesn't favor it or embrace it.
NOW if they were denying access to someone of whatever persuasion being defended by the ANTI-XXXX protesting, I could see the point.
IF there are public tax dollars involved in the whatever it is choice, I could see a point of debate, but not when the link is made from a stretch like trying to tie a business owner's personal preferences on the whatever it is, to their ANTI-XXXX acusations.
The ANTI-XXXX protestors are often just bitching because someone disagrees or doesn't embrace THEIR choice. WOW, that's some really fascist controlling horse shit right there. Just because someone doesn't prefer or embrace something does not make them ANTI to whatever it is.
Some controversial items of debate go well beyond this of course, but many are more about being pissed someone doesn't agree with them than anything else, and often justified by what they believe is the only "right" way to think.