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.
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.
So did the driver. The driver made assumptions that there were no additional connotations for “Lolita” the fashion trend out of ignorance and hung a sign they assumed wasn’t disturbing but was for reasons they did not know. If you’re just judging people by their actions, the driver’s intentions you have detailed should hold as little weight as the parents’ intentions. And what the driver did was stupid and caused harm, intentions aside.
Removed by mod
The parents expressed their care for their children in the avenues they preferred to do so.
Assuming you tried to avoid a double negative and instead meant “There’s nothing wrong with them making assumptions of other people”: Again, I’m not blaming him for making those assumptions. But he did believe it would not cause harm which most likely turned out to be wrong. And that was, in your narrative that I agree with, based on the reasonable assumption that there’s no ulterior connotation to “Lolita”.
You can argue that Japanese Lolita fashion has little do with the infamous book, but that doesn’t shake the fact that we are not in East Asia but in North America, where “Lolita” is intensely associated with the book and pedophilia. The parents made a reasonable assumption that this is what “Lolita” meant. There’s no difference here between the amount of assumptions made by the driver and the parents.
From the reasonable conclusion that their driver is a predator?
That’s an assumption. 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 also an assumption. I don’t see any reason why the driver would not cause parents to 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.
Again, there’s the harm. The pollution doubling as half the bus goes to school in a car instead and being prevented from talking with friends on the bus, especially those with whom one does not share a lunch period. And your assuming that all the parents have the time to drive their children to school without conflict from their work commute.