Toronto-area school bus driver seen in vehicle with ‘Lolita’s Line’ sign in window removed from route
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 are times when pushing societal boundaries is fine. Imho driving a school bus isn't one of them.
-
There are times when pushing societal boundaries is fine. Imho driving a school bus isn't one of them.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
It is other people who made it a big fuss by placing their assumptions onto him and being judgmental of his actions instead of being accepting of their differences and their right to be different.
-
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.
It is other people who made it a big fuss by placing their assumptions onto him and being judgmental of his actions instead of being accepting of their differences and their right to be different.
Because you can't be that idiotic and put "Lolita" on a school bus while picking up children.
-
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.
It is other people who made it a big fuss by placing their assumptions onto him and being judgmental of his actions instead of being accepting of their differences and their right to be different.
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.
-
Because you can't be that idiotic and put "Lolita" on a school bus while picking up children.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Go back and reread the first comment on why they most likely thought that wouldn't be an issue.
Not everyone knows that "Lolita" is associated with a smut book. As I said, there is an entire cultural fashion trend that has absolutely nothing to do with the book under the same name. It is very clear that this individual knows of the term from the fashion trend. What is so wrong with putting the name of a fashion trend on a sign? Would there be a problem if they labeled it "Gothic Line" and dressed in Gothic style clothing?
The idiot is you who judges others by making assumptions
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
-
Go back and reread the first comment on why they most likely thought that wouldn't be an issue.
Not everyone knows that "Lolita" is associated with a smut book. As I said, there is an entire cultural fashion trend that has absolutely nothing to do with the book under the same name. It is very clear that this individual knows of the term from the fashion trend. What is so wrong with putting the name of a fashion trend on a sign? Would there be a problem if they labeled it "Gothic Line" and dressed in Gothic style clothing?
The idiot is you who judges others by making assumptions
Hold up. You're getting fiery while claiming "Lolita" is only a fashion trend, when it is actually a reference to that very book. You have some good points, but you need to admit that there is context here that exists, regardless of if this person wants it to or not.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Go back and reread the first comment on why they most likely thought that wouldn't be an issue.
Not everyone knows that "Lolita" is associated with a smut book. As I said, there is an entire cultural fashion trend that has absolutely nothing to do with the book under the same name. It is very clear that this individual knows of the term from the fashion trend. What is so wrong with putting the name of a fashion trend on a sign? Would there be a problem if they labeled it "Gothic Line" and dressed in Gothic style clothing?
The idiot is you who judges others by making assumptions
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Where did that fashion trend get that name from? Serious question. I wouldn’t be surprised it’s rooted in the same place ergo I can still understand why people are concerned about the driver.
-
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.
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
-
Where did that fashion trend get that name from? Serious question. I wouldn’t be surprised it’s rooted in the same place ergo I can still understand why people are concerned about the driver.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
-
Hold up. You're getting fiery while claiming "Lolita" is only a fashion trend, when it is actually a reference to that very book. You have some good points, but you need to admit that there is context here that exists, regardless of if this person wants it to or not.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
It is other people who made it a big fuss by placing their assumptions onto him and being judgmental of his actions instead of being accepting of their differences and their right to be different.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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).
-
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.
You are saying the fashion trend involving looking like a young girl is only coincidentally called "Lolita"?
Gonna check out of this discussion at this point.
