The Negative Effects of the “Pure” Trend

I can say that the “pure” trend, a trend where people look for anything and everything to try and argue that some form of media is “problematic” in the efforts of finding the “purest” media, started around 2014. It initially started as a way to avoid promoting people who did shady things, but then evolved and grew much worse, leading to people who follow the trend trying to exaggerate non-real issues in order to say why and otherwise piece of good media was actually awful. The “pure” trend is unnecessarily nasty, attempting to ruin actually good or progressive media.

The most recent case of this was Brooklyn 99Brooklyn 99, which was marked for its genuinely funny humor (and social progressiveness), came under attack for being centered around a police force, which “media purists” argued made the show awful. They discouraged people from watching it, arguing that because it was about cops, it was promoting police brutality (what?). Fortunately, their attempts actually backfired, with people calling them out for trying to ruin a good show.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case for a few other examples, particularly Dream Daddy. The game, which is a male dating sim where you have the option of dating many fathers. It was diverse and cute, and it was harmless. However, “purists” jumped on the fact that there was an unused ending for one dad, a priest, where he ran a cult, saying that that ending was homophobic. They extended that assumption to say that the whole game was homophobic, and that the creators, a group called Game Grumps (known for their Youtube channel) were terrible people that deserved to be permanently boycotted. While the game’s popularity did resurface quickly, it took an initial hit, fading to the shadows as the “purists” continued to blast the game.

If you couldn’t tell by the examples, the “purity” trend doesn’t center around conservative Christian values. It’s rather based from the social justice warrior values, the radicalized form of progressiveness. In these values they look to ruin everything to find the most perfect media, which assumes that human beings can be perfect, and any flaws they might have ruin their image for life. These people jump on the idea that someone’s problematic past (in the case that they changed and became better people) makes them unable of redemption, which only reinforces the idea that people can’t change. It completely ignores people’s human nature and variance, placing them in an unachievable position of having to be perfect, always. It’s simply unrealistic and damaging.

One thought

  1. I think more than a little bit of it extends from people trying to seem more “woke” or progressive than others. In a “if I can spot this problem, that proves I’m progressive” type of way, and yes, I find it deeply annoying.

    Some of it, Im sure, comes from people wanting to mimic many of the socially aware meta essays they’ve read all over the internet, but they have no grounding in how to write such essays, or the practice of critical analysis, which has clear, set rules.

    I am socially aware, but I don’t look for issues. I just enjoy the media, as it’s given to me, and if I notice a problem, I say so, and keep it moving. I grew up during the eighties, in which everything I watched, or heard, was “problematic”. I’m well used to enjoying such media, and occasionally, in a completely arbitrary manner, not enjoying it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s