#like the horrors he commits to find a cure at least have a purpose

[warlenys]

house is this insanely intelligent universally respected doctor he’s also dark and miserable and mean he commits ungodly medical malpractice crimes and yet he has a Best Friend. that he regularly calls his Best Friend. my Best Friend wilson. imagine you’re dying in a hospital bed after this awful doctor has repeatedly fucked you over forced you into surgery given you drugs that have nearly killed you and then he goes hang on a second i can’t save your life right now my Best Friend is mad at me. i have to go make puppy dog eyes at him to get him back. that’s what’s really important here

[possessionisamyth]

How would you rate resident evil storytelling and it's characters, esp remakes?

Di you think that's their main selling point and whatnot?

Well RE storytelling isn't good so jot that down-

Okay, but seriously, before I get into this let me tell you I have never really been into the zombie narrative as a horror connoisseur the same way I'm not into "white guy kills everyone" horror movies. The white guy kills everyone story is just as easily found when I turn on the news, but zombies?

With zombies the ending is the same. Find the cure or everyone dies eventually. It's the sub genre that relies the most on jump scares with mascot horror recently sliding in alongside it. I couldn't pinpoint the exact decade where the zombie narrative switched to being more character focused in order to keep the genre fresh for people who enjoy it, but we are currently in the aftermath of that decision.

That said, RE storytelling isn't good. It can be fun! I put fun and good on two different graphs when I judge the writing in the piece of media I partake in. For example? The Venom movies are so much fun! They have nothing to do with spiderman which is the symbiote's literal origin story for finding eddie brock later. This is a facet many comic fans find blasphemous, but if you have half a brain or aren't a dick about canon requirements, you'll still get so much enjoyment out of the movies themselves. They stand on their own without spiderman, which I think is a feat well done. Very fun and entertaining.

So yeah, RE storytelling and the characters can be fun. There is a potential for it to be good, but in order for that potential to be reached Capcom has to do something they forever avoid in their writing.

Commit to the characters' in-game relationships.

:)

Put your shipping hopes down. I don't mean romantic. I mean commit to Leon and Claire being friends who shared a horribly traumatic event together. Commit to Ada's mixed feelings about Leon and her job. Commit to Leon's mixed feelings about Ada and LYING about never seeing her to Hunnigan, a woman and co-worker he can actually trust. Commit to showing Jill's unhealthy reliance on Chris just as much as we see Chris' unhealthy reliance on Jill. Show Barry as a family man who's made mistakes with his wife and kids and tries to work things out. WHERE IS HIS WIFE CAPCOM? Show Rebecca reminiscing on her time from RE0, and IDK place a letter she sent out to someone from a strange address who's speech style looks vaguely familiar. Show Sherry's trauma from her constantly healing body and make her have a weird relationship with doctors. Show that Sherry got to interact with Claire at the very least?????? REDFIELD SIBLINGS?!?!?! REDFIELD SIBLINGS SURE DON'T FUCKING ACT LIKE SIBLINGS. WHAT THE FUCK WAS DEATH ISLAND? IM GONNA-(cane drags me off stage)

"Oh, but people will take those things as shipping purpose and we don't want to imply that."

Idk, it's apparently already in the damn trenches in spaces I never go to (tiktok, twitter, insta, etc), and I don't think the people making MLP aus give a shit regardless. Plus, this game series is so old they're making money strictly off the brand name like every other AAA game series.

I genuinely mean that. Capcom could do the exact same shit with RE4 that Bethesda did with Skyrim, and they'd make bank every fucking time. Oh wait, they did with constantly have to port it to new systems!

Let me see Leon and Hunnigan laughing and sharing coffee in the break room. Let me see text message chats from Claire and Chris ribbing each other. Let me see Jill shopping for clothes with Chris being forced to hold all the bags. Let me see old photos of Barry with his wife and daughters at an amusement park before "the incident". Let me see Rebecca and Jill trauma bonding while spending the night together. Let me see Chris and Leon awkwardly make eye contact on a job neither of them expected to be on at the same time. Let me see Ada sneaking into TerraSave, and let Claire send a selfie of them to Leon only to have Leon freak the fuck out. Claire and Rebecca going to cafes? Jill helping Chris fix up his car? HELLO CAPCOM?! COMMIT! COMMIT! COMMIT! COMMIT! COMMIT! FOR FUCKS SAKE-

These don't even have to be big moments! Just 20-30 seconds of animation? Painted illustrations? An option to read a report in game stating these things happened? Anything! Anything! Is anyone in here?! IT'S SO DARK!

[laufire]

Supernatural s2

I’m halfway through s3 already (technically a rewatch, but there were episodes I didn’t watch the first time around), so this post is a little overdue lol. At this rhythim the posts will overlap. Plus I’m hoping I can finish s4-5 during the holidays to see the ~intended ending~ before I have to slow down on the binge-watch. After that, a season a month sounds achievable AND won’t take longer than 2021 xD

ANYWAY.

-Overall, I’ve enjoyed it more than the first one, but at the same time I’ve found myself missing how... claustrophobic? Insular? Compact? That one was. s2 was about the world opening up just a little bit more, introducing new characters to the brothers’ life, etc. I do love the detail that this is something that can only have, narratively speaking, once John is dead. Again: this show gets abusive families, consciously or not.

-The foreshadowing is beautifully done. 15 seasons make for a lot of unintentional and ironic foreshadowing later on, I’m sure, but the purposeful foreshadowing is superb this season. About the crossroads deals, of course, but especially about John’s last words. I already knew he’d told Dean he might have to kill Sam (father of the year, seriously. Though I side-eye the fandom even more for always having acted as if this is only awful for Dean lol), so I was hyperaware of every single detail. My favourite moment was the absolute horror of hearing Gordon proudly, cheerfully relate how he murdered his sister when she became a vampire (which, btw, as someone that’s still bitter about what went down with the Gunn siblings on Angel, I found it healing to see something like that treated as a horror story).

-Speaking of Gordon: I unashamedly love his character lmfao. Sterling K. Brown is mesmerizing, always. At the same time, I have serious mixed feelings (especially after seeing his arc in full in s3) because man, if it isn’t a racist mess. I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s not exactly revolutionary that the first time we see the story from the monster’s POV (something I want the show to do! Often!), it’s when white monsters are stalked and brutalized by our first black hunter. Especifically a white woman, btw (although I’m happy to see Tara Maclay as a brunette vampire. I didn’t know I needed that in my life, but I did). And you can tell that the show thinks it’s just so SMART and FUNNY to have a ~racist black hunter!! I mean, the comment about how psychic kids would be “betraying their race” if they allied with demons?? FFS.

And ofc there’s the fact that he’s condemned for the exact same type of stuff that makes Dean be hailed as a hero lmfao. Though I won’t like, I love the moment where, faced with the comparison, Dean’s response is “I might be like you, I might not. But you’re the one tied up.” I love those kinds of character moments. As of s2 I officially have a love-hate relationship with Dean Winchester, I hate it here xDD

But still, on his own, Gordon is an amazing character (it’s one of the most frustrating things about the show, the greatness tainted by the bigotry :))). Charismatic, terrifying, and ofc superbly acted. Also, I love that the fact that he praised John (as opposed to every other hunter having a rockier relationship with him) is clearly supposed to be a red flag LMFAO.

-I enjoy how the seasons delves more deeply into Sam’s ~~dark origins, since it was my fave thing about him way back when. I’m already mourning the (as I suspect) lost of his powers, ngl. There’s a little more attention in how he tends to over-identify with supernatural creatures struggling with their ~dark sides too (bitch me too, the fuck xD), which I LOVE to see (among other reasons because at least in that way we get a little of their POV in the forefront lol). One of my favourites in that sense was the episode centered around the ghost-who-didn’t-know-she-was-ghost, played by Tricia Helfer. I clocked early one what was going on, but it was still very enjoyable, especially with Sam’s empathy with her (contrasted by Dean being a total bitch about it, btw. I can’t believe I still see post about how Dean is all heart/kindness/compassion/whatever the fuck. Dean is all about selective empathy and only when it conveniences him, pls).

I was more divided on the episode with Madison the werewolf, tbh. OTOH it put Sam in a better position, for a change xD. As the one willing to make The Hard Choices by fulfilling his promise to kill her because she was dangerous, even when Dean offered to ~take the burden from him. OTOH I hate that kind of thing lol. YOU GUYS KNOW A HUNTER PRO LIKE BOBBY, I BET HE COULD’VE FIGURED OUT SOMETHING TO CONTAIN HER A FEW NIGHTS A MONTH. Also, my immediate reaction was to compare this to when my man Angel had a crush on a werelady and helped her every month lmfao. But then, very few characters can withstand a comparison with Angel, in any sense :P

I also liked Sam’s subplot with his fellow demon-psychic kids, though I wish it’d lasted longer :/ (also: RME at the queer girl dying almost immediately AND her power being killing people, her girlfriend first of all, with her touch. The black guy was the last one to die at least...?). My fave was Ava, by far. I loved her since her reaction to helping Sam stealing a psychiatrist’s records was yelling “I’M AWESOME!!”. It made it easy to buy that someone that appeared so mundane, with her easy life and her fiance and whatnot, would become so power hungry and go off the rails, IMO.

BTW: RME at Dean being all “oh Sam is going too dark/becoming to cold” when Sam kills Jake. Jake ripped off his spine and killed him first!! It both amuses me and infuriates me all the times Dean tries to push Sam to be more like himself and then freaks out whenever Sam is not all sunshine and rainbows (while still remaining, IMO, far less cold than Dean himself. Besides, it’s not easy to be colder than Dean, lol).

Lastly, a little character detail I loved was when Sam was jealous about Dean being in the federal database but not himself lmfao. 

-I loved the new foreshadowing crumb with Sam finding out Mary knew the demon, too (information he’ll withhold from Dean, which I approve of LOL). I mean, I know exactly what’s up, I’ve watched most of s4 xD (also, what is UP with this family and making deals with demons. Everyone but Sam so far!! And then HE gets dragged for ~getting too close to one smh. Maybe lead by example!! Also also: yes, it was meant to be ambiguous, but I can’t help but notice the only kiss-pact -or further, depending to how close YED was to Lilith’s levels, since to make a deal with her you have to fuck xD- we didn’t see was the one that must’ve happened between John and YED. Cowards!! xD). Still. I’m so curious about her. Her resurrection is one of the main reasons I’m determined to make it to the later seasons, ngl.

-Another thing I LOVED about this season is how they used sibling relationships to parallel/foreshadow stuff about the brothers, the way s1 did often with fathers. I’ve already mentioned Gordon and his sister, but the others are not less brutal imo: Andy having to kill his evil twin, who wanted him all for himself (... Dean is that you xD); the little girl’s ghost who wanted her grand-niece to commit suicide to stay with her, and didn’t give in until her old sister agreed to die in her place. It was chilling. Also, at one point the parallel was between the brothers and a married couple (the ghost-who-didn’t-know-she-was-a-ghost) and asñdlfkajsf. I’m guessing they had fun with the shippers lol.

Speaking of the brothers’ relationship, this season also goes a little further in escalating the violence between them, when Dean punches Sam in the face and he refuses to respond (“you can hit me all you want, it won’t change anything”. Fuck), or when Dean again punches Sam after Sam was possessed by Meg ¬¬

-Going back to my love-hate relationship with Dean, lmfao. My biggest beef remains how much validation his POV gets from the narrative, granted or not; he’s one of the most irritating cases of protagonist-centered morality and I know it’s only going to get worse smh. At least this season it feels a little more balanced than in s1, with episodes like the one where the civilian Sam had tried to keep away dies halfway through the ep because Dean allowed him to get involved, for example. Still, it grates on me xD. The continuing prison rape jokes/demonic possession rape jokes (with Meg and Sam), his general grossness with women and his lack of sympathy for non-humans even when they’re not trying to hurt anyone don’t exactly help. Also, I often see him praised for some of his political views, a lot of which I agree with (his mistrust of cops, saying convicts don’t deserve to die no matter what they do), but when contrasted with his general attitude across the show it’s really grating ngl.

But then he has such AMAZING character details thrown in, that make me appreciate him as a POV character nonetheless, as much as I often want to curb stomp the guy xD. I loved his speech about how there’s no such thing as a dignified death. I love how he refused to come near his mother’s grave, both at the beginning and at the end of the episode (this show is like, the cure to DCCW’s shows false fuzzy sentimentality istg). I love his pop-culture references, like when Sam mentions Dean always thought OJ was the murderer or Dean jokes about freeing Katie Holmes from Scientology’s cult xD (sometimes it really hits you how old this show is lol). I enjoyed his Wishverse episode, and his lines after Sam dies/he sells his soul to save him (“I had one job”, “my life can mean something”) hit HARD.

But most of all? I LOVE how and why he starts losing respect for John. It’s so fucking cold and abrupt and makes so much sense!! Like, yes, part of it is John’s message about killing Sam (... again, father of the year!), but most of all it’s about John making a pact with a demon and dying TO SAVE DEAN (and probably, simply that he died at all. That shit de-mystifies anyone). IT’S SO FUCKING GREAT TO WATCH. “He spent his life chasing that demon. He was supposed to die fighting, not making a deal with the damn thing. That was supposed to be his legacy, not this." Damn, Dean xDD. The *contempt* with which he said that killed me.

I also love his inherently atheist vision of the world (even if yes, it’s extremely funny knowing this show has canon God and angels and shit -no Jesus Christ though, which I find endlessly funny-, or that they actually meet the archangel Gabriel in disguise xD. Either way, the episode with the fake angel and its foreshadowing was hilarious), his anti-destiny stance, and that it’s him and not John who gets to kill YED.

-I liked Ellen and Jo. Not LOVED, but I liked them. I keep fearing that secondary (especially female) characters will feel empty/shallow but the show keeps proving me wrong, even with one-episode wonders, and at first I wasn’t sure about them, but I was sold quickly. Partially because of the actresses, they both had this... humanizing, endearing quality? It worked really well.  I also loved the explicit contrast between John and Ellen’s parenting styles, with Ellen wanting Jo to return to school and be safe from the hunt, and Jo wanting something different. Also, I wouldn’t ship it if you paid me, but LOL at anyone who actually buys Dean sees Jo as a ~little sister just because MEG said that rme.

This show is just REALLY good when it comes to giving depth to a character with only a couple of brush strokes, which makes it all the more frustrating when they abruptly die or disappear to never be seen again/only once more (to abruptly die!) :)))

I was less sold on Ash; he was amusing, but having a Genius Hacker TM helping them out seemed like the beginning of increasingly giving the brothers ways of deux ex machina-ing them out of problems, when one of my favourite things about the show is seeing them creatively find ways out themselves. I like when they’re competent! Like with the multitude of codes they have to improvise plans, like in the episode where with two words through a lawyer they implemented a quick scheme so that Sam would escape from a police precinct. I like that stuff.

-I’m still so bitterly jealous about the dead man’s blood hurting vampires detail. SO BITTERLY JEALOUS. I love a lot of what this show does with its lore but that little bit is the worst offender. I want it so bad xD

[tothelasthoursofmylife]

“Worthy”

Hell, how should this even work?

(Messy, rather nonsensical and silly discourse under the cut.)

We know that Grim Reapers collect souls, judge souls, can deem people “worthy” to keep on living, but how does it work? When exactly does it happen? The judging? And what happens if you are deemed to be “worthy”?

To become “worthy” you need to be a truly outstanding person who may shape the world.

Grim Reapers review the Cinematic Records of the deceased.

Sometimes, Reapers spend time with those who will die soon in order to be able to judge them better.

Let’s assume that a truly remarkable and visionary person comes into existence (People can’t be really born to be remarkable). This person could make a serious impact on the world in the future, however, they die before they have the chance.

The assigned Reaper spent some time with Remarkable Person and is ready to review their Record when they die.

Both the fieldwork and the Record SCREAM, more or less, that this person should keep on living because the world just NEEDS them.

Unfortunately, they have just died.

“No way,” Assigned Reaper says with shaky hands when they try to remember where the hell they have put their “Worthy” stamp. Then, they finally find it and take it out - their hands are still shaky because they still can’t believe that they were able to stal- accompany such an important person - and dust the stamp.

Assigned Reaper, tears in their eyes because they feel so honoured and are so expectant at the things Remarkable Person may do in the future, and stamp “Worthy” on Remarky’s file.

Suddenly, the world seems to breathe in - there is a feeling of peace and hope in the air. Birds sing more beautifully than ever before. For a second, everybody experiences pure happiness: people reconcile, sudden waves of hugs and kisses, a murderer momentarily stops to strangle their victim.

But what now?

Remarky’s still dead after all.

What or who will revive him now?

Is Remarky even still in possession of a soul? Is the action of accessing someone’s Cinematic Record inextricably linked with the collection of a soul? (So far, only the dead and Sebastian (who is a demon) were cut with a Death Scythe. After the collection of a soul, a Record can still be accessed. But what about the first time? Is the soul collected when you “activate” a Record for the first time?) And if Remarky’s soul and body are separated now - how will they be reconnected?

And what happens if Remarky died...

...so old that, even if they had a second chance at life, they wouldn’t have the time to accomplish anything because they would die next week again anyway?

...due to a chronic illness which (most likely) would not simply vanish after they are revived? A chronic illness which would make it nearly impossible for Remarky to do that wonderful groundbreaking thing they may be able to do?

...due to an illness which cannot be cured right now (or even nowadays), making it seem oddly suspicious if Remarky suddenly recovered from it? (And which might kill him right after being revived?)

...by poison which would not leave their body just due to a revival?

...and their death had been so horrible that they're lacking something now? Like a crucial organ or even their head?

Remarky might have died in ways which might not have necessarily killed him, but, at least, handicapped them? If they were revived, would they be left with this handicap? And what if this handicap prevented them to do their worldshaking whatever?

This would mean that those “worthy” would have to be both revived and fully healed.

But that would be (just as mentioned above) SO SUSPICIOUS. Family and friends will definitely know about Remarky’s chronic illnesses. Will know if they had caught an incurable illness. There might have been witnesses when Remarky was incapacitated, when Remarky fell down a roof and landed with their limbs at VERY odd angles/etc.

What should the relatives/friends think if Remarky suddenly opens their eyes again after they had cried over them for the few minutes Remarky’s heart didn’t beat? What should they think if Remarky’s suddenly the epitome of health even though they CLEARLY weren’t before?

What should the witnesses think if Remarky suddenly grows a new head? (Or if their old one attaches itself back to their neck? It’s SP7 all over again.)

Is that the reason behind the witch trials?

Hell, Remarky, 5 seconds after saying “hi” to the world to which they had said “bye, pal” 10 seconds ago, WOULD BE SCREAMED AT, TACKLED DOWN, EXORCIST ON THE SPOT, BURNED, STAKED, DROWNED IN HOLY WATER...

And Assigned Reaper would just stand there and stare at the scene in absolute horror and in dire need of a therapist.

So, how is this whole “judging someone to be ‘worthy’” process done?

Is it enough to follow Remarky for a few days to be sure of it? Does Remarky then receive a cryptic message not to dine with the Guy from Down the Street and Left because he will be a bit too excited about showing Remarky his new axe? Or does Assigned Reaper tap Remarky on the shoulder and tell them about it in person?

But would Remarky, who would (most likely) be a very rational person, even believe a cryptic message? Especially, if the Guy from Down the Street and Left wasn’t even talking about getting an axe and he’s notorious for never stopping to talk?

And why would Remarky even believe a complete stranger in odd clothes who appeared out of thin air? #alexandergrahambellthatassholebastardinventedthetelephonein1888andimgoingtouseitnowtocallthepoliceandtheclosestasylum

And wouldn’t that (revival and healing or warning) be too much interfering? Something Grim Reapers are not allowed to do?

Furthermore, following someone for a couple of days would definitely NOT suffice to find out if they are important enough to be deemed “worthy” or not. It’s about a “WORTHY” person. They have to double and triple check everything. After all, they have to be 100% certain that Remarky lives up to their name (and can continue to do so).

(And Assigned Reaper clearing their throat next to Remarky (or taking their shoulder) and saying “Sir/Lady, may I cut you with my futuristic gardening tool? It will suck out your soul, but I will be entertained for five minutes. And, don’t worry, if the film’s interesting enough, I will glue your soul back to your body, I promise! :)” is just plain stupid.)

Honestly, this whole “Worthy” thing was definitely made up by Grim Reaper Numero Uno/the Big Reaper/the First Soul Collector/the Soul King/the Sovereign of Life and Death/that Reaper Guy on the Top who cares just like their “Of course, I will forgive you if you do my job because owww my old ghostery bones :) :) :)” lie to the Reapers.

The Soul King needed more people because it’s impossible to collect so many souls alone. And what’s a king without a kingdom?

So, they decide to force everyone who committed suicide to become a fellow Reaper and help them with their work. But, of course, the newly-made Reapers are unhappy because their final wish was just to die ( :( The poor babies...). So, what does the Soul King do? Give them a prospect. Or, even better, a prospect and a ridiculously important task.

The King will forgive their sin of suicide if they collect souls for him for an indefinite period of time.

They have to review the Cinematic Records of every soul because a Golden Ticket might be somewhere out there.

The Reapers now have a direction, a purpose, a goal - and an eternity. And the Soul King can finally go on holidays.

But they lied (there’s no forgiveness at the end of the lane; and “worthy humans” nothing but the King’s favourite joke) - and at the end of Kuroshitsuji, they will be confronted. And the manga will end with an epic blackmail, resulting in Reapers getting their forgiveness and someone (OC?) being deemed worthy.

But what if there ARE actually “Worthy” people but demons get them before the Reapers do because are also in search of the “best” soul, and they might have been Reapers once, who knows?

Or, well, this whole “Worthy” thing is just “there” to show that humanity is not worthy of someone like that.

(Because they would kill/persecute/etc. a magically returned.)

He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

This whole “Worthy” thing just bothers me. It might also be that I am just too dumb and forgot/oversaw things.

[djgblogger-blog]

Why Harvey Weinstein can't redeem himself through charity alone

http://bit.ly/2zttRYw

Filmmaker Harvey Weinstein, shown attending a concert to raise money for the Robin Hood Foundation in 2013. Photo by Andy Kropa/Invision/AP

As allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and rape topple his career and wipe out his clout, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is apparently trying to contain the blaze with generosity. So far, he isn’t finding takers for this contrition cash.

Fast-tracking a plan he claimed was in the works for a year, Weinstein said in his initial public statement about his monstrous behavior that he would donate US$5 million to the University of Southern California in scholarship money for women directors. The school declined that gift. He also pledged to leverage his wealth and – what he expected would continue to be – his power to advance gun control, swearing to “give the NRA my full attention.”

As a political philosopher who studies the ethics of philanthropy, I see the Weinstein scandal as embodying an important question: Can the rich and powerful redeem their reputations through acts of generosity?

‘Blood money’

Offering money as a form of atonement is easier for Weinstein than finding someone who will accept it now that the source is so tainted. As the Change.org petition started by a USC student put it, these donations are “blood money” intended to distract the public and purchase forgiveness.

There’s nothing new about rich and powerful men who try to strip the tarnish off their reputations through philanthropy. For centuries, the Catholic Church encouraged rich people to purchase “indulgences” as tickets to heaven. Martin Luther’s disgust with this practice helped spark the Protestant Reformation.

“Robber baron” philanthropists like steelmaker Andrew Carnegie and oilman John D. Rockefeller still raise hackles for how they gave away money amassed through ruthless business tactics.

John D. Rockefeller (left) and John D. Rockefeller Jr. gave a large share of their fortune, made in the oil business, to charity. American Press Association

More recently, the Sackler family, which made its fortune in pharmaceuticals, has come under fire. Until news of their role in creating the opioid crisis through aggressive marketing emerged, the Sacklers were best known for major gifts to universities and museums.

A series of lawsuits is starting to change that reputation.

And the UCLA law school accepted a $10 million donation from Lowell Milken, who nearly went to jail with his brother Michael for their role in the junk bond scandal, in 2011. That move prompted Lynn A. Stout, a business law scholar, to leave the school.

Real philanthropy

Despite those precedents, philanthropy is about benefiting society, not repentance. Done well, it requires a thoughtfully selected worthy cause and a wise strategy to advance it, coupled with respect for all the stakeholders involved and compliance with the law.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether other characteristics also matter, how to rank these criteria and what constitutes a good cause. What about motives?

Donors who make big donations to advance their business interests appear to betray philanthropy’s main purposes. Conflicts of interest, or even their appearance, can make philanthropy morally dubious and even illegal.

And Weinstein’s gifts to support feminist causes – at least in the aftermath of revelations of sexual misconduct – reflect one giant conflict of interest. (New York state Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman was already investigating corporate governance at amfAR, a New York-based charity that works to cure AIDS, over concerns raised by its support from Weinstein before this scandal unfolded.)

At least two institutions – Rutgers University and the Clinton Foundation – have vowed to keep their Weinstein donations, arguing that they can do more good by using the money to advance good causes than by returning it.

Meanwhile, many politicians, including former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, are either returning money he gave their campaigns or donating those sums to charity.

It seems clear that his attempt to cover the cost of women seeking a degree in filmmaking, announced as his scandal broke, was a desperate attempt to deflect blame and salvage his reputation.

The German example

“Guys, I’m not doing OK but I’m trying. I got to get help. You know what, we all make mistakes,” Weinstein said a few days later, as more women spoke out about how the now-disgraced producer had demanded sexual favors in exchange for movie roles for decades.

Are there conditions under which the court of public opinion owes wrongdoers the “second chance” he said he hoped might be in store?

I suggest that Germany provides an instructive example. In the aftermath of the Holocaust and the other horrors its Nazi government meted out, that country underwent a profound period of collective soul-searching.

In a nationwide attempt to atone for its crimes against humanity, West Germany honored the outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials, imposed by the Allies. But it also took numerous and considerable steps on its own accord to try to make amends.

West Germany held its own tribunals two decades after World War II, the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials, to punish Holocaust conspirators not tried at Nuremburg. It made Holocaust denial a serious crime – and Germany continues to do so today, long after reunification.

The country is dotted with memorials and Jewish museums. Its educational curriculum includes frank historical accounts of the nation’s tarnished past. And it has voluntarily paid more than $70 billion in reparations to Israel and individual Jewish survivors.

Though none of these acts can excuse the Third Reich’s despicable behavior, many people perceive them as authentic displays of atonement. What’s more, these efforts made it possible for Germany gradually to resume its place as a member of the international community in good standing.

The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is located in the heart of Berlin. Jorge Royan, CC BY-SA

Applying the German model

Here is how I believe that disgraced rich and powerful people can learn from Germany’s example. Imagine that Weinstein had first issued an earnest apology, instead of rambling defensively after The New York Times first reported his protracted abuse.

Then imagine Weinstein welcoming and dutifully complying with the legal and professional investigations about his conduct that are in the works. And then picture him graciously accepting any verdicts and serving any sentences required of him for the crimes he has allegedly committed. Visualize, if you can, Weinstein keeping himself checked into rehabilitation clinics and enrolled in courses on gender inequality as long as he isn’t behind bars.

Now suppose that after all of this hypothetical behavior, Weinstein would then meet with victims of sexual abuse and experts in grantmaking. And that with their guidance, he would give away what’s left of his fortune – currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of $250 million – to advance gender justice and end workplace harassment and sexual abuse.

None of these efforts I have conjured up would excuse Weinstein’s behavior. But I contend that in such a case, it would make sense for charities and universities at least to consider taking his money.

Sensitive acts of this kind of compensatory philanthropy can be an acceptable part of a process of making amends for past crimes. To count as legitimate, however, acts of charity as penance cannot substitute for official punishment for civil and criminal misconduct and they must be closely related to the crimes.

No matter what, money can never replace genuine contrition and rehabilitation.

And such donors should cede control over how their money is spent. Germany, for instance, did not demand that recipients of reparations spend the money in specific ways. Rich and powerful wrongdoers should likewise not seek to micromanage or receive a seat on the board of organizations they fund.

It’s hard, in other words, to give large sums of money away as one of several steps toward atonement for heinous crimes. This is just as should it be.

Ted Lechterman ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son poste universitaire.