This gif was a lot smaller than I expected it to be.

As a Louisiana resident from the swamps.

What the fuck?

I’ll proudly ruin the discussion of people trying to be judgmental twats. Thanks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yea gonna disagree there. A company shouldn’t have the right to end employment over inconsequential differences. That is not their authority.

So long as the individual is doing the job, which is simply to drive a bus in this case, everything else is irrelevant and companies should go get fucked for trying to dictate that. How he dresses has nothing to do with his ability to drive a bus and shouldn’t be allowed to be a factor in determining his employment.

The entire point is he shouldn’t have had to face any consequences for something so benign.

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.

I’m done dealing with your bullshit logic. Every you said is just fucking stupid, ass backwards logic. You clearly don’t know what the word “assumption” means. You think literally everything is an assumption.

Again the driver didn’t make any assumptions. He simply acted independently of anyone else for the sake of personal expression. Shut the fuck up with saying this bullshit. You’re fucking wrong. People can make decisions independently of how others around them will interpret them. If you can’t, you’re kinda pathetic for letting others dictate your actions.

Fuck these parents for making assumptions and then using those assumptions to punish someone who was doing literally nothing but expressing themselves in a way that is different than others

The entire point is DON’T MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS. IF YOU HAVE TO ASSUME, THEN GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND FUCKING COPE.

I’d doesn’t matter if they knew or didn’t know what matters is that theyade an assumption and acted on it. Fuck them for doing that. Period.

And this is all predicated on the assumption that the driver was in fact referring to Lolita fashion. If I need to prove there was harm, you also have to prove they was just making a fashion statement.

He is literally wearing the fashion in the fucking photo, dipshit. That’s the fucking proof.

I’m done dealing with stupid fucking people who just want to make roundabout excuses for people to be judgmental of others.

The parents made misguided assumptions of someone else and dictated how that person could express themselves. Fuck those parents. Period. Your wild logic to justify their behavior is utter bullshit.

Assuming you tried to avoid a double negative and instead meant “There’s nothing wrong with them making assumptions of other people”:

No, that’s the opposite of what I was saying. You clearly lack reading comprehension based on this entire thread., so no surprise you misinterpret me. There is everything wrong with making assumptions of others. It’s a bad habit people need to stop doing. People who do so are in the wrong. Period.

There’s no difference here between the amount of assumptions made by the driver and the parents.

Except there is, because the driver was making no assumptions of anyone. His actions were not based on the decisions of other. He was simply expressing himself in the way he saw fit. As he has ever right to do. Every individual on this planet has the right to express themselves independently of how others around them might perceive them. Only the parents made assumptions of the man and his preferred method of personal expression and then acted in a way to deliberately restrict this man’s ability of personal expression.

The following argument is based on the parents being justified in their assumptions, which they weren’t, so this argument is invalidated. That was not a reasonable assumption. It was an ignorant assumption rather than actually observing the actions and seeing that no child was harmed.

unfairly forced this man out of his position

No, it isn’t an assumption. Read the article, it is directly written in it. He no longer drives that route. That route was his position, which he no longer occupies. The rest of what you said is irrelevant to my point.

The driver caused zero harm.

No, this also isn’t an assumption. It’s the negative. Until you can prove with evidence he did harm, then the negative is always considered true. This is called the “benefit of the doubt”. Learn it.

forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.

They were not forced. Parents were perfectly able to choose to continue letting the kids keep riding the bus. The harm of emissions from not letting the children take the bus is the fault of the parents, not the driver. If the parents can’t drive their kids to school, then they should learn to cope that other people have the right to be different. Don’t shift the blame.

No, he made no assumptions. The driver was simply expressing themselves in the way they preferred to do so, as he should have the right to do, as long as he is causing no harm in doing so, which he wasn’t.

He doesn’t need to make any assumptions of other people because he isn’t responsible for how others behave or their actions. People are responsible for their own assumptions or how they choose to react. That’s some bullshit logic you have. If people find it disturbing or uncomfortable, that’s their own problem to cope with, not the driver’s. They can look away or chose to drive their own kid to school. Otherwise they can cope.

You’re right, the driver’s intentions also don’t matter. What matters is the actions, and the actions were harmless and inconsequential whereas the actions of the people unfairly forced this man out of his position.

Also, I wasn’t explaining his intention, I was explaining the parent’s assumptions of those intentions and how they unfairly used them to render judgement.

The driver caused zero harm. That’s a bullshit claim and you’re fucking stupid for making. It.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.