Mere disagreement with x does not make you anti-x. I disagree with existentialism. But I lose very little sleep over it, and only give the subject about sixty seconds' thought every year or so. Thus, it would be ludicrous to describe me as an "anti-existentialist." So, likewise, with literally hundreds of possible positions and ideologies. I disagree with -- oh, let's see -- Keynesian economics, poststructuralism, Sikhism, predeterminism, Freudian psychoanalysis, revisionist theories of the Kennedy assassination, and technical analysis of the stock market. But since I do not campaign or crusade against any of these, it would be very implausible to call me, say, an anti-Sikh or an anti-Keynesian.
In response to that quotation, one poster objected to my use of existentialism as an example, declaring that the idea of opposing existentialism is nonsensical and that, because of this latest laughable instance of what he likes to portray as my essentially perpetual stupidity and incompetence, there is no point in paying attention to anything that I say. As examples of opposition to existentialism, however, I offer a whole panoply of Marxists (e.g., Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse), as well as Martin Heidegger and logical positivists such as Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer. To the extent that they spent time and effort writing to criticize central existentialist ideas, I see nothing at all wrong with terming them “anti-existentialists.”
(Incidentally, I'm actually fond of certain existentialists or existentialist fellow travelers, and have, in some years, given them much more than sixty seconds of thought. I like Berdyaev a lot, and have spent a fair amount of time in the past reading Nietzsche especially, but also Jaspers, Buber, and Kierkegaard. In each case, I see much to like. So, once again, calling me an "anti-existentialist" would be a bit weird.)
Another poster observes, with regard to my quoted comment above, that “it is problematic to define the threshold as having sufficient passion about the subject to keep one up once in a while and giving the subject more than sixty-seconds' thought in a year.”
I agree.
But, of course, I said nothing about a “threshold” and offered no such definition. If I had to choose a “threshold,” it would, among other things, be far above “losing sleep” (a metaphor for caring with some substantial degree of intensity) and many light years above devoting sixty seconds per annum. But it would also allude to the element of opposition, which is essential to the concept of “being anti-something.” My point was that, given my not caring much at all about something, calling me anti-that-something would be quite implausible. I’m substantially below any reasonable “threshold” for applying such a label.
One can lose sleep over (i.e., care about) and devote substantial time to many things (e.g., the solution to Fermat’s theorem, establishing a new branch of the family firm in Belgium, helping a child learn baseball, improving Pakistani schools) without being deeply opposed to them or even opposed to them at all. But someone’s devoting little or no time to x, and not caring about x, seems to make it less plausible to call that person “anti-x.” To be “anti-x” is merely to be “opposed to x.” Caring about x, devoting at least some measure of time and/or energy to x, is not sufficient to make one anti-x, but it’s certainly necessary to make one such.
I do not use the term anti-Mormon “as a power play” (any more than my use of the terms anti-coagulant, antacid, anti-bacterial or anti-lock brakes is “a power play”). It is not a way for me “to reduce a person to something ‘other,’” any more than my use of the terms anti-Masonic, anti-Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Mubarak is a method of denigrating those to whom I apply them. (I happen to consider myself anti-Communist and anti-abortion, and I was pretty much anti-Mubarak.)
I use the prefix anti- merely to indicate opposition. Nothing more, nothing less. Such opposition can be good or bad.
Though I disapprove of anti-Mormonism and do not think it a positive thing – not because of the prefix anti-, which is neutral, but because I consider Mormonism a good, opposition to which is misguided – I can easily imagine worse things, and am acutely aware of worse things. My use of the term is defensible, I think, because it's essentially dispassionate.
For those wondering: I see the Tanners and Ed Decker as anti-Mormons, but would not label Mike Quinn or Dan Vogel as such.
