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.

You need your head checked if you make wild ass leaps of logic like that.

Removed by mod

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.

Nice baseless assuming and clear misrepresenting my argument. Lolita fashion isn’t “love for little girls”, so don’t try to force an association that isn’t there. Sorry you like to remain ignorant. Please. Block me so I don’t have to deal with judgmental assholes like you in the future.

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.

Removed by mod

Yes. Go read about how the term Lolita became associated with a fashion trend in Japan. Sorry you choose to remain ignorant.

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, it has multiple connotations, which are completely independent of each other.

The Lolita fashion trend of 90’s Japan has nothing to do with the 1950s book. Period.

Just because the words are the same doesn’t mean they are directly related to each other

Unless you also think Goth subculture and music genre is related with 3rd century Germanic people or the 12th century architectural style just because they also share the same word.

Removed by mod

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.

From someone in the 70s who wrote an Alice in Wonderland parody manga that used the word “Lolita” to refer to Lewis Carroll’s obsession with Alice after the term “Lolita complex”, which comes the book of the same name by Russel Trainer written during the same time. Yet, the translation of the book into Japanese was done in a way that lost the sexual connotations and instead tied it to the romanticized girls’ culture (shōjo bunka) in Japan, thus didn’t receive the same stigmatized connotations. From there, other authors and the otaku community just kinda started using the word to refer to fan-favorite cute, female characters from popular shoujo manga.

Few decades later, in the 90’s, it just began being used to refer to a fashion trend which was similar to the way Alice would be presented. FYI, Japanese culture during the 70’s and 80’s was weirdly obsessed with Alice in Wonderland.

Similar to how “Goth” subculture has nothing to do with 3rd century Germanic peoples nor 12th century medieval architectural style.

Edit: love how people are down voting factual history just because it contradicts their biases. Typical.