A few sober thoughts on Jacques Pauw's druken lies:

1. If Jacques wasn't white and male, responses to his drunken ĺies would very likely NOT treat this as a morally or ethically "complex" situation. He'd be judged bluntly for blatantly lying.

2. Jacques enjoys unearned privileges even in this moment. Some people get second chances and are allowed to "make mistakes". For the rest of us, one strike and you're out.

3. Jacques' "apology" is bullshit. Nowhere in it does he admit to *intentionally* abusing his journalism credibility to destroy others. He blames a few drinks instead.

4. IF Jacques had a memory lapse for real, then he shouldn't have written the article AT ALL but dealt with the whole matter outside of hua journalism platforms. He intentionally wrote lies knowing he has "memory lapses".

5. So Jacques is straightforwardly culpable for putting pen to paper. No one who has a shit night out, wakes up and writes a coherent set of MANY lies while secretly not being sure of what truly happened.

6. Why did Jacques do it? Because white men, especially straight white men, *know* that 9 times out of 10 they get away with this shit. So he did not have to panic about exposure.

7. Daily Maverick should not merely publish Jacques' "apology". If they take credible journalism seriously they should never again publish work by Jacques.

8. Lastly, opinion pieces aren't reason to intentionally lie. It is idiotic to say that only news reports must be factually sound.

9. Opinion pieces must be GROUNDED in facts. It is the ANALYSIS OF THE *FACTS* that can be opinion. But "opinion" isn't license to lie intentionally.

10. Journalism's credibility is already rapidly declining. Any journalist who defends Jacques or who chooses silence simply gives society reason to say that peer review in media is non-existent. We must engage each other.