The parents are also heard taking issue with the fact that the bus driver appears to be dressed in a schoolgirl’s uniform. The bus driver is heard saying that they “do this every week.” “And I don’t think there’s any problem,” they are heard saying to the parents before driving away.
Case of some dude with niche interests who only knows of “Lolita” from the Japanese cultural perspective, which is more focused on a specific fashion style and has no direct relation to the book.
Honestly, he wasn’t doing anything wrong. From the picture in the article, all he would do is wear frilly dresses; probably thought the students would find it amusing. Like… Big deal? Not like he was diddling the kids or anything. People need to stop being so judgemental.
There’s absolutely no context in which “Lolita” isn’t a sexual thing
Except yea there is. It’s called “the Japanese Lolita fashion trend about a cross of Victoria and Rococo dress”. I literally have been explaining it. Sorry y’all want to remain ignorant that other cultures exist. I’d recommend you go educate yourself except we all know you won’t and instead will just continue to be an ignorant dip shit who wants to make assumptions of others.
If this is the creepy hill you wanna die on, go for it.
If this is the judgmental and ignorant hill you want to die on, go for it.
It’s only “creepy” cause you would rather make assumptions instead of just doing 5 minutes of googling and reading about how the fashion trend came to share the terms.
It is literally just a coincidence.
The Japanese Lolita scene is probably more pedophilic than the book itself. You literally used a bunch of creeps to defend your pedo kink
Love how you assume I’m a fan of it just because I’m defending someone’s right to their own personal expression. Classic leap of logic. Still just as baseless and made in ignorance to still try and claim the fashion trend has anything to do with sexualization of children. Sorry you’re incapable of differentiating it. You should work on that.
And the Lolita fashion scene isn’t the same thing as the otaku lolicons. Again that’s only a tangential relationship from how the term was popularized. But can’t really expect people who make wild leaps of logic to care about something as small as nuance.
Exactly. This is just like when I got fired from my bus router after putting up a sign calling it “The Epstein Express” and decorating it with the work of famed cartoonist Benita Epstein. Can’t believe the parents were so uptight
And they would be in the wrong for making judgment based on their assumptions instead of the actions.
So yes, can’t believe parents are so uptight and judgmental.
Yeah sure, but the average person is real dumb. Theres a reason paint cans say do not drink.
There are times when pushing societal boundaries is fine. Imho driving a school bus isn’t one of them.
Why? Why do we make excuses for people to continue being arbitrarily judgemental of others for inconsequential differences instead of allowing people to just be themselves so long as they aren’t causing harm?
To him, he wasn’t “pushing social boundaries”. He was just doing something fun and sharing his niche interest with others in a fun way.
Do you store your hard drives over an acid bath? Just curious.
God y’all are fucking stupid with y’all’s baseless assumptions just because you’re to fucking stupid to separate that terms can have multiple means in different cultures that are entirely independent of each other.
I’m not even a fan of Lolita fashion. I just had an ex who was and they explained this to me when I used to make the same shortsighted mistake.
Literally, just go fucking Google it. It was an entire fashion trend that was popular during the 90s all the way into the 2000s in Japan, and literally the only thing it has to do with the stupid pedo book is the fact it shares a damn name.
But you stupid monkeys will see that it shares the same name and just jump to conclusions because it is easier than actually fucking learning why that is.
And putting that sticker on a bus full of young girls in catholic school uniforms is paying homage to Japanese culture? Makes sense actually.
He wasn’t “paying homage” to anything.
He was just having a fun time, which happened to be dressing in the Lolita style, and then named his bus line, placing a sign in the window in reference to the fact it was the line with the driver who dresses in Lolita fashion.
But sure, keep trying to make more assumptions and leaps of logic to confirm your biases.
It’s a matter of professionalism and optics. I work for an impressively liberal financial institution, but I guarantee you I would be written up at best (probably fired) if I showed up to work in a pink schoolgirl dress and put a sign on my desk that said “Lolita’s Credit Union.”
The driver wasn’t arrested. His identity doesn’t appear to have been shared publicly. The wording in the article implies that he still works for the transportation company but was taken off of the school route. It’s not like it’s a witch hunt. He’s just facing the natural consequence of unprofessional behavior.
If you’re going to be the public face of a company, you shouldn’t comport yourself in a way that anyone with half a brain cell would know is uncomfortable and offensive to your client (in this case, a Catholic private elementary school).
Fuck shitty concepts of “professionalism” and “optics”. I don’t give a shit about pointless things. Those are just excuses for people to be judgmental of others for inconsequential differences. Anyone who uses them as a defense loses all respect from me
He was doing the job, anything else is irrelevant. The way he dresses doesn’t have anything to do with how he drives.
No task exists in a vacuum; optics are part of the job. Nobody can be forced to employ him in the position that he prefers. If he feels strongly about it, he can establish his own transportation company called Lolita’s Bus Line and attempt to win the school district’s contract on his own merit.
P.S. Moderating your own self-expression to accommodate the comfort level of a diverse audience is a healthy, mature part of human social interaction. You aren’t obligated to do so, but you must expect friction and obstacles when you don’t. There are times and places to let your true colors fly. It’s wise to recognize that and seek out those settings.
Yea. Just entirely fuck the logic that this argument is premised on. People should be allowed to express themselves freely and others should learn to cope with others being different. Fuck anyone who says otherwise.
Optics aren’t part of the job. That’s utter bullshit. The only thing that is part of that job is driving the bus. Anything else is irrelevant.
People shouldn’t have to moderate their self-expression based on the arbitrary sensibilities of others. That isn’t “healthy and mature” that’s restricting and oppressive.
What’s healthy and mature is learning to cope with the fact others are different and not judging others based on those arbitrary differences or forcing them to conform to your expectations of them.
If you expect others to conform to make you more comfortable even if they aren’t doing anything other than existing (which is what this driver was doing) in a way that is different from you, you can go get fucked. If you’re uncomfortable, the only person whose problem it is to deal with it is you. You don’t get to force others to change for you.
Oh, absolutely that’s true, and I hope I didn’t imply otherwise. It goes both ways. What’s healthy and mature is learning how to meet people where they’re at and avoid conflict. Sometimes that means overlooking things that make you uncomfortable, and sometimes that means being mindful of how your own appearance and behavior can make others uncomfortable.
Would you be okay about the bus driver being nude too? The answer is probably yes but for most most most of us it’s a no.
They weren’t nude and a dude wearing a dress is not the same as them exposing themselves. Nice try with a false equivalency argument.
Also, shouldn’t matter if you are not okay with it. Sounds like a “you” problem that you need to cope with instead of forcing others to conform to your sensibilities. Again, so long as they aren’t harming anyone, then you can shove off with your judgement of their differences.
If it makes you uncomfortable, stop looking.
I’m inclined to agree with your presumption of idiocy instead of malice; that the driver just didn’t know the connotations of “Lolita”. Yet the word still makes parents think their kids are being preyed on all the same. I’m not judging that this is what the driver meant to do, but it is something that would make parents not trust the bus and harm the children forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.
It’s still possible the driver is given a second chance at bus driving. And in the worst case I doubt the driver would not be able to find employment in public transportation.
That’s a problem for the parents to solve themselves without forcing their judgment onto someone else who has nothing to do with their assumptions. If that means they have to change their own morning routine, then so be it. That’s their decision to make. What wasn’t their decision is to dictate the actions of the bus driver.
I’m directly criticizing the parents for how they handled this. They are in the wrong for what they did.
This man did nothing wrong on his actions and yet was punished due to the shortsighted assumptions of judgmental people.
Just like how the driver probably didn’t know what “Lolita” meant, the parents probably didn’t know about the Lolita fashion trend. You’re also forcing your judgement onto the parents for making the logical decision based on only the information that was available to them here. If one doesn’t know it’s a fashion trend, I don’t see any other likely explanation for putting up a sign saying “Lolita’s Line” other than the driver being a predator or maybe the driver just repeating out loud whatever they hears others say, which isn’t good for children with ears either.
No. I am judging the parents on their actions, not on assumptions made of their intentions and hypothetical scenarios of what they “might do”. That’s the key difference you seem to be missing here.
The parents did not make any logical decisions, because they did use logic to reach their decision. They made assumptions, leaps of logic, out of ignorance and decided to act on them in haste, even though the driver had done nothing wrong. Just because you cannot see any other reason for them to do something doesn’t give you the right to make assumptions and then render judgement based on them.
Judge people for their actions, not for perceived intentions.