I feel like this is a distinction that isn’t being made often enough, so let ,me clear it up.

Not liking a [thing], doesn’t mean you are an anti.

Not liking a ship, a trope, a kink or a [thing], doesn’t make you an anti. Even making/reblogging posts about why that thing makes you personally uncomfortable, doesn’t make you an anti. Yes, you would be anti!thing in the sense that you don’t like it, but it doesn’t mean you subscribe to the anti ideology. You are allowed to not like ships, or kinks, or any kind of content for any reason, and that’s fine and you are allowed to want to engage in fandom in a critical way.

What makes you an anti is:

- calling people some variation of “p*dophile/rape/abuse apologist” for liking a ship, or having a kink or claiming they are actual abusers for ii

- making your personal feelings on the thing the bases of moral judgment against the thing (aka “I think x is gross, therefore x is morally unacceptable” Fun fact: the world does not revolve around you!)

- harassing (which includes anything from doxxing, anon hate to making “callouts” usually with very misinterpreted information) people for the way they engage in fandom or for their consensual kinks, or basically anyone who is just quietly existing

- employing radfem rhetoric (particularly SWERF rhetoric - eg. careful with words like “normalising” and “fetishizing”)

- employing the “think of the children” logical fallacy

- basically acting like fiction is the exact same thing as reality (yes, fiction can and does influence reality, but the relationship between the two is much more complex than “monkey see, money does” as antis like to pretend)

TL;DR

“I don’t like X, because of Y and Z, and i don’t want to see it, but I acknowledge that there are people who like X and that doesn’t make them bad people, although I still may not want to interact with them” - not an anti

“I don’t like X and everyone who likes X is a terrible person and I will suicide bait them until they do it or at least delete” - anti