this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
93 points (97.9% liked)
Not The Onion
17027 readers
1038 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, absolutely. We have the right to express ourselves. But we aren't entitled to employment in any position we want at any company we want regardless of how we express ourselves in public while representing that company. "Dressing in flashy attention-seeking outfits and displaying a sign that says Lolita" isn't a category that's protected from employment discrimination.
The dude isn't facing criminal charges. Just normal workplace consequences that anyone should have expected regardless of whether you feel it's right.
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.
It's not "inconsequential" if it causes friction with your client. You can say "this is fucking bullshit and fuck anyone who disagrees" as much as you want because you're an uninvolved keyboard warrior, but the employer has to be pragmatic.
Then what you said doesn't make any sense. I agree nobody needs to make assumptions. The driver didn't need to, the parents didn't need to. But my argument is they all did.
Of course they were. "You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.", said a famous person whom we all know thanks to the context we live in. The basis of whether we do anything is whether it would be good for ourselves, no matter if that means it would be better to someone you're close with or that the backlash from incongruence with society's expectations is too little to worry about. Here, according to your narrative which I agree with, the driver assumed that the views of others and superiors wouldn't change except maybe someone'd bad an eye or avoid looking at them. Instead, parents were scared to have their children ride the bus.
Didn't you say that the driver probably didn't know the pedophilia connotations of "Lolita"? How is that "Lolita" is a normal word without such connotations not an assumption?
The story would be very different if parents were primarily concerned about the driver's dress, in which case I would agree with you. But, instead, the story here is with the sign.
How were they supposed to know "Lolita" referred to the fashion trend?
That's all it says. You assumed it meant he was fired when in fact it could've been a suspension or a transfer to some other route, just as the parents assumed "Lolita" meant what they were taught it meant growing up. The article doesn't even seem to know what gender the driver is.
To do that you need possibility for doubt. What is the reasonable doubt against the negative effects I mentioned occurring?
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.