#label theory

[tr1ppykay]

the more i participate in discussions of transmasculine issues, the more disgusted i become at the approach a lot of "trans inclusive" feminists have towards transmascs...

feminist theory exists to serve the real life people that are harmed by patriarchy. if theory is not sufficiently serving real human beings who are desperately looking for acknowledgment of their suffering, then it must be rewritten to make room for that acknowledgment. if transmasculine people are all telling you about discrimination they have experienced, and how feminist theory does not make room to talk about their unique relationship with gender based oppression, you modify the theory to make room. you don't bash them over the head with writing that doesn't account for their existence.

feminism is not a fundamentalist religion. it is a conversation that must account for new perspectives and evolve to encompass them if we want to make any progress. but many feminists who discount transmasculine experiences want to treat the current state of feminist theory as a bible of unwavering truth: if men who face gendered oppression aren't mentioned, then trans men must be wrong about their lived experiences. of course, your precious theory could never have blind spots!

[monsterqueers]

Im just really annoyed about how people just fucking hate it when the kids they were jealous of and hated in school for not also getting bad grades also report being fucking traumatized by the school system.

Yeah sorry school traumatizes everyone, even the 'ex-gifted kids' you fucking hate because god forbid someone wasnt exploited and overworked the same way you were.

Sorry a group of predominately neurodiverse people experiencing burnout and how their upbringing of being only valued for their academic performance totally fucked their ability to function in the real world dare talk about this pain where you can see.

Its not being privileged and ~humblebragging~ to report emotional neglect from your parents centered around you having to get perfect grades to receive any scrap of love.

Wishing violence on them for talking about it and finding each other isn't cute either.

And because these people need it stated extra clear

This post is NOT saying other groups of people 'had it less bad'. This is about a specific phenomenon of vitriol towards a oft neurodiverse group of people commiserating about how they were screwed over by the system under the label 'gifted kid' NOT whatever else you are imagining im saying. <3

[styrofauxm]

I found out about box theory recently and I found it really neat.

But I don't find it useful personally. The imagery of the box and the idea that the box is individualized don't work for me at all.

So, I thought I would share my personal way of conceptualizing labels.

Essentially, you view all the LGBTQ+ labels as tools in a gigantic toolbox.

You can go through it and grab the tool you want to complete the project you are doing.

Two people may grab the exact same tool for projects that could not be more different.

Two people may grab completely different tools for exactly the same project.

And, of course, two people could grab exactly the same tools for exactly the same project.

And any variation/combination of any of those.

The important thing to remember is that there is no universally correct tool to use. Grab a hammer to unscrew a screw. Grab a screwdriver to remove a nail. Use a tape measure to etch a piece of art. Use 20 different tools for one task. Go wild. If it works best for you, it is the best tool for the job, even if other people would never use it that way. You're the one doing the job, so use the tool(s) that help you.

If someone criticizes the way that you are completing your own personal project, then they are just being annoying and pretentious.

Labels are just tools of self-description. Mix and match them. Use them in unconventional ways. If anyone cares, it doesn't matter, because the labels you use are for you, not them.

[smile-files]

nickel and balloon stuff from spring on the breakfast!!! i'm keeping in mind that in the previous episode, both of them were under the impression that their friendship wasn't real...

in a way, ii3 balloon is a lot like late ii3 cabby. of course, balloon did something indisputably immoral (manipulate and exploit others), and cabby only did something thought to be immoral (keep and use files about her fellow contestants) -- but both did something wrong and had to subsequently undergo a disproportionate amount of abuse and malignment for it, ending up with them being apologetic and submissive to avoid any chance of being framed as bad again. the biggest difference is that cabby has internalized the guilt others have attributed to her, while balloon largely hasn't -- he understands the concept of rolling with the punches for the sake of keeping good connections, but he doesn't believe he deserves it.

nickel brushes off ii2 a LOT this episode. to rid himself of his guilt regarding that time, he necessarily has to delegitimize the hatred he felt towards balloon then, thus also ridding balloon of his guilt. he expresses this all vaguely, choosing to remember ii2 fondly and saying off-hand that its baggage should be laughed off -- implying that balloon has been forgiven. reasonably, balloon is happy that nickel seems to actually believe he's changed for the better, so initially this makes him happy.

of course, though, it becomes clear that nickel just wants to shove his own actions under the rug, and balloon reasonably gets pissed off. nickel treated balloon and suitcase like complete garbage in ii2, and balloon clearly hasn't forgotten that.

"it keeps things easy." it keeps things easy to roll with the punches, to endure nickel's abuse and accept his sudden friendship. note, also, that nickel is still placing the blame on balloon: he's saying that balloon didn't want to "make things better", as if nickel and balloon ever having a rift was entirely balloon's fault, and his problem to fix.

and as we can see, nickel still hasn't fully forgiven balloon for ii1. as i've discussed before, nickel seems to secretly feel incredible guilt about how he treated balloon in ii2 (which is why he goes to such lengths to repress the whole memory of it) -- but that guilt is about the way in which he expressed his disdain and distrust of balloon, not those opinions themselves, nor the motivations for them. this is all very interesting, then -- if he still believes balloon can't change from his old, bad self, why did nickel start being friends with him at all?

i think a large part of it is his projection onto balloon. nickel sees himself in balloon: someone who screwed up big-time and isn't able to become a better person after that (according to nickel). we tend to gravitate to people similar to us, after all. i wouldn't be surprised if nickel was also trying to overcompensate for his hostility towards balloon in ii2 by being very friendly with him in ii3, thereby helping him forget that he was ever hostile to him at all.

the most fascinating thing to me about balloon and nickel's relationship is how impersonal it is for balloon. he seems to value what nickel's affection represents rather than nickel himself -- and it represents that he's been forgiven. anyone who saw balloon and nickel's conflict in ii2, which was a product of balloon's nastiness in ii1 and nickel's subsequent inability to forgive that nastiness, would likely come to accept balloon and forgive him themselves if they then saw nickel being friendly with him -- because nickel is the epitome of the ii contestants' anger at him, and nickel of all people (seemingly) forgiving him would imply that he's really changed. the relationship is almost entirely a symbol in that regard. i don't think balloon has much residual guilt about is actions in ii1 -- he feels like he's adequately addressed them and changed -- but nickel having a positive relationship would be helpful in affirming that stance and proving to himself that he really has changed.

i wouldn't say it's cruel of balloon to keep this relationship going on under that pretense, but it is backhanded, and it helps explain why he was ever willing to accept nickel's friendliness unchallenged. he wanted his crimes to finally be laid to rest once and for all, and keeping nickel on good terms with him would let that happen. people would finally shut up about it. up until now, nickel wasn't explicitly denying his past cruelty towards balloon anyway, so balloon would be able to ignore that he neglected to ever bring it up; now, though, nickel is denying not only what he did to balloon but also to suitcase, which balloon is not able to tolerate. now that he's confronted nickel about that though, nickel snaps back with his condemnation of what balloon did in ii1, thereby uprooting the social stasis balloon had been able to maintain precisely because nickel refused to bring anything up before. in a way, then, balloon is purposefully shoving the past under the rug, just like nickel is.

we can't forget, though, that nickel has his own complex about fearing that he's incapable of change and incapable of forming positive, genuine relationships with people. balloon is essentially revealing that, in a way, he wasn't really friends with nickel -- at least not in the way nickel wished and fooled himself into thinking they were. if balloon truly were friends with nickel like that, then that would mean that balloon had forgiven him for his cruelty in ii2, and perhaps that he really has changed... but no. balloon hasn't forgiven him. why should he? nickel never apologized -- and given how he never apologized, it's impossible that he could've changed anyway: nickel doesn't want to apologize because that means addressing his guilt and allowing himself to feel it. he wants the forgiveness to be handed to him on a silver platter, without him having to do all of the painful work, and he's incredibly upset when it isn't. he wants to not be a bad person, but in order to do that, he has to feel like one, and he really doesn't want to. he hates who he was and doesn't want to associate with it at all.

(note how it's the suitcase robot who says "you can say sorry" when nickel says that nothing can be done about making things better...)

there's clearly an immeasurable amount of resentment these two have been harboring for each other throughout this season, which they'd only been hiding for the sake of fooling themselves into thinking they've changed (nickel) or thinking that others think they've changed (balloon). and now that they've let themselves explode with anger, partly related to the lies they'd been telling themselves falling apart, they yell at each other and balloon drops nickel down a hole!

ah, balloon and nickel's relationship... it's bizarre, it's toxic, it's convoluted, it's shady, and it's incredibly sad. i'm glad i'm revisiting ii3, especially this episode -- i used to be utterly baffled by nickel's writing, particularly in spring on the breakfast, but now it makes complete sense to me. also, i used to think balloon was entirely the victim in this relationship, while now i know that he has his own faults and own baggage in that regard. it's weird -- they hate each other, but at the same time they're dying to be liked by one another. god i love these freaks...

[namtanlovesfilm]

I've just seen someone describe the trainee as a 'slow burn'... slow burn? babe it's been three episodes. they're co-workers. there's a power difference within the company. one ended up with the internship by lying in his interview & the other is a try-hard, speaks (aggressively) his mind, loner. I would've been more surprised if anything remotely romantic had ALREADY happened. I feel like recent bl shows have cooked our brain by feeling the need to have the characters kiss/fuck/get together as early as possible so that the audience feels satisfied. bring back getting the first kiss at ep 8 like in not me or ep 10 like in theory of love, that's the offgun formula AND I LOVE IT THAT WAY <3

[annymaght]

Hi guys, I made something you might like tee hee

I present to you...

Chaos Theory as Vines!!

[pasta-pardner]

sixguns & innuendo

[mind-lost-in-the-stars]

I would like to personally thank Nerdy Prudes Must Die.

I had a hyper-fixation on it over the summer and then had to write a media review for a class on deviance.

you’ll never guess who got a perfect 100 ;3

[hellomagicalsouls]

so in the latest re cap video sparrow ben says "who the hell is jennifer?" it took me off guard and ive heard some theories but im open to more because he was drawing jennifer in season 3. literally all over his room.

i assumed that she was alive and that sparrow ben was dick and thus ended their relationship. but all this time ive been assuming it was romantic and i dont even know anymore.

i mean "who the hell is jennifer?" idk man the girl you literally wallpapered your room with??

[helpimstuckposting]

TMAGP 27 Speculation

This is a continuation of the CAT1,2,3 theory of Person, Place, and Thing

I’m also going to include previous episodes MAGP24, 25, and 26 as I haven’t included those yet in this theory.

So before I get to MAGP27, I want to quickly go through the previous three episodes because I think they’re pretty straight forward.

Episode 24

CAT1RBC1375-29022024-23042024 Baby (demonic) --/- Delusion (exhaustion)

CAT1 (person) - I think a lot of people who are for or against this theory think the direct subject is what the category would be referring to (I’ve seen arguments against saying that episode 1 for instance could be any of the three since a reanimated corpse could be a person or a thing and the cemetery is a place) but personally I think it’s whatever is causing the incident.

In episode 1 (CAT1), there was repeated mention of a person that promised they could bring the widows husband back, and did. For this episode, there was repeatedly a mention of a ‘health worker’ who showed up and kept reassuring the mother that her baby was normal and patched the mother up after feedings. Whoever this ‘healthcare’ worker was, they were the one taking care of the baby when the mother was too weak. I think this person is what the CAT1 label would be referring to, rather than the baby itself.

Episode 25

CAT2RB2474-07022024-24042024 Food (Gorging) --/- compulsion (disgust)

CAT2 (place) - this one’s pretty obvious since the place is a diner that serves rank food, I don’t really think there’s anything deeper here or confusing

Episode 26

CAT1RBC4463-14042024-02052024 Exhaustion (athletic) --/- compulsion (tape)

CAT1 (person) - Even with only seeing CAT1 and the title ‘catching up’ I assumed this episode would be about [ERROR]. It’s always cool when I can guess the topic before the episode even starts, which is one of the main reasons I think this theory is strong

Episode 27

CAT3RB5535-18021845-10052024 Kidnapping (carriage) -/- consumption [letter]

CAT3 (thing) - the ‘person’ driving the carriage isn’t real, it’s attached to the vehicle, “in that moment I saw without doubt that there was no border, no dividing line, no gap between the coachman and the coach. They were somehow as one.” So, this statement is not about a man of any kind, it’s about the carriage itself, a thing.

I’ve seen a few people say CAT3 would be objects specifically, but if nouns were only people, places, and objects then a significant portion of the world would no longer be categorized as nouns. Air is a noun, tattoo is a noun, music is a noun, and yet none of these are objects which is why I would say CAT3 would be things rather than physical objects specifically. Ink5ouls tattoos are things, the voice in Herr Schmidt’s head is a thing, a finance app is a thing, etc

Now, this episode also brought up another point from an earlier episode. Episode 07, Give and Take, is labelled CAT2 and people debunking this theory say the objects filling the storefront or the volunteers creating chaos should make the case either a CAT3 or a CAT1. I did think that was the most compelling argument against this theory, and it was weird to me that it hadn’t been labelled CAT3. However, after todays revelation that The Magnus Institute owns Hilltop Center (has since 1997, and currently still does) and the first volunteer specifically said he knew Hilltop Center “better than anyone”, I would say CAT2 proves that the location is what’s most important to this case and this category system is, so far, still accurate.

Tagging @shootingstars-or-airplanes because they’re who started this whole spiral for me lol

[liquidstar]

honestly does anyone else think that the what:if routes are perhaps telling us that some sort of collision between subaru and reinhard is just inevitable in nearly every route

[hyperfixatinator]

I have a few doubts about how Phoenix could've forged that bloody fifth ace in AA4. I'm not outright denying he did it, but if so it's probably different from how Turnabout Trump framed it.

Let's start with what we know logically about Phoenix and Zak's last poker game.

There were two decks of cards; one red, and one blue.

Each deck had four of each card. This means each deck started with four aces.

The last game used the red deck.

The above point means the fifth ace Orla snuck into Phoenix's hand was a red card, making five red aces in total that game.

Kristoph took the real (fifth) bloody ace with him out of the crime scene.

Based on this and other information we have from this trial, I have two questions:

When did Phoenix forge the bloody ace?

Where did Phoenix get the red ace he used for forgery?

Phoenix said that he picked it up while he was at the crime scene, but this contradicts the evidence!

There were five red aces in play at the time of the murder. Kristoph already took one, and using a blue ace was out of the question. If Phoenix really took a red ace before the police arrived, he would've only had four to choose from.

Yet, all four were still at the crime scene after Phoenix was arrested. They were even submitted into evidence by the prosecution at the trial.

Unless there was somehow an unspoken sixth ace in the red deck for no reason, this tells us Phoenix lied about taking a red ace with him that night. Plus, having forged evidence on his person during arrest and detainment could've ended terribly for him.

He couldn't have forged it before the match since he wouldn't have known he needed an ace card at the time. And his pockets were clean when Zak searched him.

This leads us to believe the forged bloody ace was created sometime after Phoenix was arrested. But how can he do that when he's stuck under surveillance in the detention center?

The secret is Trucy.

(this is where it progressively dips further into headcanon territory)

With Phoenix locked up, Trucy would be the most likely candidate to pull off a stunt like this. As a magician, Trucy is all about illusions, and she's not above using them to get loved ones out of legal trouble.

Trucy's magic profession also means poker cards are a natural tool to have in her arsenal. Cards are her "stock and trade" after all.

As Phoenix put it, it's a naughty magician's trick. One she felt was necessary to save the only family she had left.

Now, here's why I still think Phoenix could've been telling the truth about forging the bloody ace himself. Even if Trucy was the mastermind of this plan, I don't think Phoenix would let her be the one to actually forge it for an important reason.

Apollo.

Him unlocking his latent perceiving ability was crucial for the trial, but it could've also become a double edged sword.

Phoenix only had his prodigy daughter for reference as to how strong a perceiver's senses are. If Phoenix ever had to lie about being the forger to protect Trucy, the risk of Apollo seeing through it would've been too much to stomach.

Even after the trial's over, it's better for Apollo to hold a grudge against Phoenix instead of Trucy. He couldn't let their secret sibling bond die before it could start.

So what better way to hide a lie than to make it true? All Phoenix would have to do is put a blot of red ink on a card Trucy snuck in during visiting hours and let her work her magic.

It's a technicality, but at least Phoenix can distract Apollo with a custom-made truth.

[bistaxx]

I think a lot about Bagi and Jaiden being the "Failures" of the federation... at what point did they fail to meet expectations that they likely were never even aware of- when did they fall short of their imposed goals or when did they stray a bit too far from the path discretely planned for them? Maybe it's the other way around, that the federation themselves failed with them in some way- whatever they had in mind for them not going to plan for one reason or another.

Was it before they wiped the memories of the woman who once worked alongside them or after they locked her away in their own experiment reduced from co-worker to just another subject? Was it after they wiped the memories of the woman whose seemingly unshakeable determination for the truth got her too close for the feds comfort or long before with a curious child unaware of the secrets held by the island that was her home?

By what metric is the failure measured? Jaiden who even while deep in her indulges of chaos still states that she'd betray anyone for Cucurucho- and Bagi who does not care for what the federation thinks of her engaged in a dance of working with the federation so she can one day tear it down in her own personal way. They are very different people, so it's hard to picture them both being labeled 'Failed' in the same way... but maybe it is about the same thing and it's something they share with everyone else on that board.

What does it mean for their future- What does it mean for those who consider failure as unacceptable? When something fails you either try again- either entirely or with some revisions or you give up- and leave it or scrap it.

There's just so many ways to read the word "Failed."

[wlwocprincess]

You know the when it comes to the “demonized radical leftist freedom fighter that the narrative has chosen to turn into a villain (maybe they’re a terrorist? War criminal?) that makes the protagonist realize that radicalism can be Just As Bad but then chooses a way that’s easier and safer than Liberation” I’m surprised nobody has pointed out Gale Hawthorne. He’s this trope exemplified. Ppl will pick all these characters but Gale Hawthorne, probably because we have all sort of deluded ourselves into choosing the comfort of the easier and safer option that is so within the ending of these books, isn’t labeled this way which is wild. This is a poor brown character who we get to know really well throughout the first two books and because of how angry he is due to his oppression he quite literally ends up making Bombs that are used to kill children. And we just. Move on from that. Accept that’s just who he is now and that’s the end of his story as we know it. Huh.

[intersex-support]

Something that has been helpful for me when having conversations about what counts as intersex is to really engage in enquiry about what the label means and how we're using it. To me, it's been more helpful to think through questions like:

What purpose does labeling a variation as intersex serve?

In what ways is societal understandings of "typical" changing?

Why was the label of intersex created and has our use of the label shifted?

What ways are we building intersex community? What do we want intersex community to look like?

How do our experiences of oppression impact our understanding of intersex as a term?

What sources are we drawing from when we develop definitions of intersex?

What is the history of the way intersex has been used?

What ways has intersex community been exclusionary in the past, and is that in line with our current values?

Definitions of intersex have always been tied up with what the medical world decides to classify as differences of sex development, but especially in the past twenty years as intersex community has grown more connected, we've started to have a lot more self-determination in our communities. But I think a lot of people still really have a misconception that intersex is a biological "third sex" that is strictly medically defined, and that there are clear cutoffs between intersex and endosex.

Instead, I'd like to bring in the concept of compulsory dyadism to introduce a framework where intersex is an intentional political label used as a way to build community for the people whose variation of sex characteristics are most impacted by the stigma and violence associated with compulsory dyadism.

Sex diversity is not just limited to intersex people. Even within the boundaries of dyadic/endosex bodies, people have variations like different amounts of body hair, penis size, hormone levels, breast size, as well as things like disabilities affecting any of those traits. For example, very few people actually have all the "ideal" traits that line up with this constructed idea of an endosex body that has the exact "correct" amount of estrogen, the right size chest, the ability to bear children, "normal" periods. Many endosex people might have a variation in one of those aspects at differing times during their life, such as during menopause, for example. And this framework can help us understand how diagnoses such as endometriosis are not intersex, but people might still notice overlaps in certain experiences.

But the reason that not everyone is considered intersex and the reason that having a separation between endosex and intersex is important is because of the stigma and violence associated with straying further and further from that dyadic norm, and intersex is a label used to describe people who are the most impacted by that stigma and violence. We have been socially labeled as "deviating" the most from the "normal" sex binary, and consequentially face intersexism both on a systematic and personal level. Our collection of sex variations becomes located entirely outside of the sex binary, and as a result, we often face curative violence, social stigma, and systematic exclusion from many parts of society.

This definition isn't a perfect definition. I think we need to have room to develop more nuance around the fact that many intersex people might not feel like their experience of being intersex has brought them any personal stigma or violence, as well as understanding that there isn't going to be a universal intersex experience. Even when discussing how intersex people are the most impacted by compulsory dyadism compared to endosex people, I think it's important to recognize that within the intersex community, our additional intersecting identities are absolutely going to influence our experiences with oppression and that it's vital to intentionally uplift the members of our intersex community who are most impacted by oppression. In the United States, the creation of the sex binary was an explicitly racist process, and racialized intersex people are subject to additional layers of stigma, violence and scrutiny. (Check out chapters 4-6 in the book Cripping Intersex by Dr. Celeste Orr for a really in depth discussion of how antiblackness and compulsory dyadism are forces behind why the Olympic sports sex testing has pretty much exclusively targeted Black women from the Global South, regardless of whether or not they are actually intersex. Also recommend reading The Biopolitics of Feeling: Race, Sex, and Science in the Nineteenth Century by Dr Kyla Schuller.) I also have talked with many intersex people who are tired of us always being represented through trauma narratives in the media, and who want us to be able to build a definition of intersex that isn't based around violence or tragedy. And I think that's really important that we also share our stories of intersex joy, and pride, and healing. I think that claiming intersex can be something really radical, and that's super valuable to me.

Overall I think that if we build our discussions around who is intersex on concepts to do with our social and political location, and take into consideration concepts like compulsory dyadism, sex diversity, and disability, we are going to be able to understand why any of it matters better than if our determinations of intersex identity are based solely in medicalized concepts of a third sex.

TL;DR: Although endosex people also have diversity when it comes to sex traits, intersex is still an important label that not everyone can claim. Compulsory dyadism is a force that affects all of us, but intersex people are the most impacted by compulsory dyadism and face intersexist stigma and violence for our intersex variations. As a result, intersex is an important label for us to claim so that we can build community and solidarity around our experiences. I think it is better understood as a sociopolitical label that describes the relationship between our biological bodies and the cultures we live in, rather than as a medicalized term that described a coherent "third sex."

other intersex people feel free to add on to this post-I'm only one person without all the answers, and would love to hear other perspectives!

[boyfridged]

i’ve been thinking a lot about what is so unique and appealing about 80s robin jay’s moral standing that got completely lost in plot later on. and i think a huge part of it is that in a genre so focused on crime-fighting, his motivations and approach don’t focus on the category of crime at all. in fact, he doesn’t seem to believe in any moral dogma; and it’s not motivated by nihilism, but rather his open-heartedness and relational ethical outlook.

we first meet (post-crisis) jay when he is stealing. when confronted about his actions by bruce he’s confident that he didn’t do anything wrong – he’s not apologetic, he doesn’t seem to think that he has morally failed on any account. later on, when confronted by batman again, jay says that he’s no “crook.” at this point, the reader might assume that jay has no concept of wrong-doing, or that stealing is just not one of the deeds that he considers wrong-doing. yet, later on we see jay so intent on stopping ma gunn and her students, refusing to be implicit in their actions. there are, of course, lots of reasons for which we can assume he was against stealing in this specific instance (an authority figure being involved, the target, the motivations, the school itself being an abusive environment etc.), but what we gather is that jay has an extremely strong sense of justice and is committed to moral duty. that's all typical for characters in superhero comics, isn't it? however, what remains distinctive is that this moral duty is not dictated by any dogma – he trusts his moral instincts. this attitude – his distrust toward power structures, confidence in his moral compass, and situational approach, is something that is maintained throughout his robin run. it is also evident in how he evaluates other people – we never see him condemning his parents, for example, and that includes willis, who was a petty criminal. i think from there arises the potential for a rift between bruce and jay that could be, have jay lived, far more utilised in batman comics than it was within his short robin run.

after all, while bruce’s approach is often called a ‘philosophy of love and care,’ he doesn’t ascribe to the ethics of care [eoc] (as defined in modern scholarship btw) in the same way that jay does. ethics of care ‘deny that morality consists in obedience to a universal law’ and focus on the ideals of caring for other people and non-institutionalized justice. bruce, while obviously caring, is still bound by his belief in the legal system and deontological norms. he is benevolent, but he is also ultimately morally committed to the idea of a legal system and thus frames criminals as failing to meet these moral (legal-adjacent) standards (even when he recognizes it is a result of their circumstances). in other words, he might think that a criminal is a good person despite leading a life of crime. meanwhile, for jay there is no despite; jay doesn't think that engaging in crime says anything about a person's moral personality at all. morality, for him, is more of an emotional practice, grounded in empathy and the question of what he can do for people ‘here and now.’ he doesn’t ascribe to maxims nor utilitarian calculations. for jay, in morality, there’s no place for impartiality that bruce believes in; moral decisions are embedded within a net of interpersonal relationships and social structures that cannot be generalised like the law or even a “moral code” does it. it’s all about responsiveness. 

to sum up, jay's moral compass is relative and passionate in a way that doesn't fit batman's philosophy. this is mostly because bruce wants to avoid the sort of arbitrariness that seems to guide eoc. also, both for vigilantism, and jay, eoc poses a challenge in the sense that it doesn't create a certain 'intellectualised' distance from both the victims and the perpetrators; there's no proximity in the judgment; it's emotional.

all of this is of course hardly relevant post-2004. there might be minimal space for accommodating some of it within the canon progression (for example, the fact that eoc typically emphasises the responsibility that comes with pre-existing familial relationships and allows for prioritizing them, as well as the flexibility regarding moral deliberations), but the utilitarian framework and the question of stopping the crime vs controlling the underworld is not something that can be easily reconciled with jay’s previous lack of interest in labeling crime.