Lindsay Shepherd leaves the Left

You’ll remember Lindsay Shepherd as the graduate student at Wilfred Laurier University (WLU) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, who got into trouble with her university for showing a short clip of Jordan Peterson discussing the “pronoun issue” on Steve Paikin’s television show “The Agenda.” Shepherd, who at that time identified as a Leftist, made it clear that she didn’t agree with Peterson’s views, but showed the clip to inspire discussion in the class she was “Canadian Communication in Context.”

Apparently one student in that class was offended, went to WLU’s LGBTQ center, and the Center itself filed a complaint to the University. As I wrote at the time:

Shepherd was called in for a private shaming and criticism session by faculty and University officials. Fortunately, she was savvy enough to record the whole 43-minute interrogation on her computer rather than taking notes. You can find the full recording and some of the transcript at The National Post. . . Shepherd’s interrogators/shamers were her own supervisor, professor Nathan Rambukkana; another professor, Herbert Pimlott; and Adria Joel, Laurer University’s manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support.

That recording was something: a full-on bout of Social Justice bullying and threats by University officials. If Shepherd hadn’t secretly (but legally) recorded it, nothing would have happened, but she released it to the press, and the contents of her shaming/bullying/interrogation session were so vile that she became a free-speech hero, while WLU looked ridiculous. Eventually her supervisor and WLU apologized to her.

In the meantime, Shepherd was radicalized, but radicalized against the extreme left. Like many who have been demonized by that section of the Left, like Bret Weinstein and Nicholas Christakis, they were disillusioned, and also did interviews with right-wing media like Fox News, who were, of course, the only part of the media interested in bad behavior by the Far Left. For appearing on conservative shows, Shepherd (who did every interview asked), Weinstein and others were doubly demonized—now characterized as “alt-right.” Apparently you’re not supposed to appear on conservative media as you absorb their cooties and become a right-winger.

The radicalized Shepherd made what I see as one misstep: she started an “Unpopular Opinions” speaker series at WLU, which is fine, but invited Faith Goldy, a nativist and white nationalist, to be the first speaker. That, of course, didn’t go down well, and the students deplatformed Goldy simply by pulling the fire alarm, bringing an end to her talk—which she hadn’t even started.  Goldy isn’t exactly a savory person, and I would have advised Shepherd to choose someone a little bit less hateful. Still, it was her choice, and Goldy should have had a hearing.

Regardless, that incident was apparently the last straw for Shepherd, who put up this 6½-minute video yesterday announcing that she’s no longer identifying with the Left, and telling us why. As you can see, she’s thoughtful and articulate, and I admire her.

I’m sad that she doesn’t consider herself a Leftist—could she still call herself a “progressive”?—but this is what happens to people who become demonized by the extreme elements of their very own political base. And really, I can’t argue with most of the things she says. But were I to talk to her, I’d try to convince her that it’s not the entire Left that she’s describing, but the Intersectionalist and Social Justice Left, and there are many of us who still see ourselves on the Left and don’t embrace the extreme moiety. (Journalist Nick Cohen is a good example of a “good” Leftist.)

So watch this:

Here’s a longer video January—about 20 minutes—in which Brittany Pettibone, who is a white nationalist and an alt-righter by anyone’s definition, interviews Shepherd. Fortunately, Pettibone doesn’t do much talking, allowing Shepherd to explain herself and her history. And here Shepherd describes herself as “center-left” and “progressive”, and you can see her thinking evolving—thinking that culminated in the video above.


  1. glen1davidson
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    The virtue-signaling left continues its campaign to make the right look good by comparison.

    Glen Davidson

    • pck
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

      They’d have become a whole lot worse to make the right look good.

      • Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        Agreed but they do make the rest of us look bad.

      • Stanley Rutgers
        Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:31 am | Permalink

        Nope. The right just looks dumb. The new left looks downright evil. The new left is intolerant of diverse ideas and opinions. It champions emotion over reason. It has become the ideology of the childish, the terminally stupid, and the insane. A new Salem, if you will. The right’s going to have to do some work now to catch up with the nastiness of the new left.

  2. DrBrydon
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    She got intellectually mugged.

  3. Posted March 31, 2018 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I detest package terms like “the Left”, or for that matter, the way “conservative” as used in the US, to label assemblages of complex positions that may or may not logically belong together. I see such terms as doing for politics what baraminology does for evolution.

    • Posted March 31, 2018 at 11:47 am | Permalink

      They’re just placeholders for ‘Us’ and “Not Us’.

    • Posted March 31, 2018 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      Who cares what moniker you’ve enshrouded yourself with; it’s your positions, arguments, and actions that really let people know who you are. Left schmeft – Right schmite.

    • Posted March 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      Reducing a many-dimension problem like politics to one dimension seems guaranteed to lead to this, especially when the most prominent single division in our society that can be objectively identified is between economic top and bottom, not political left and right.

    • BJ
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

      As do I. I went on a rant the other day about how all ideology circumvents individual and rational thought, supplanting it with belief, and abrogates compromise and destroys nuance. All of this leads to tribalism; tribalism leads to a reduction in social cohesion; and all of this leads to a continuous reduction in policies being considered for maximum utility, and instead for considerations of (1) what will make the base happiest, and (2) what will be most unpalatable and/or destructive to the outgroup. Utility becomes a tertiary consideration at best.

      If tribalism reaches its absolute pinnacle, the possible outcomes are generally either anarchy, revolution (and, by extension, civil war), or dictatorship. We can see the devastating effects of unbridled tribalism in places like the Middle East. Religion is, as we know, the most powerful form of ideology. But secular ideology is just religion without gods: a set of rules meant to negate individual thought by providing a set of rules that lead adherents to the conclusions desired by the ideology.

    • Mike Anderson
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

      +1. These labels have become a tool for misinformation and political maneuvering.

      The human propensity to lazily categorize things is so problematic, but there doesn’t seem to be much resistance to it.

    • Jiten
      Posted April 1, 2018 at 6:23 am | Permalink

      I entirely concur. I was going to say something similar but you said it succinctly.

  4. Posted March 31, 2018 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    I go out my way nowadays to describe myself as a ‘Liberal’ (sometimes prefaced by “old school”), emphasizing that it’s not synonymous with ‘Progressive’ or ‘Left’.

    I must also sometimes clarify that it’s also not synonymous with ‘Libertarian.’ Though in the US, Libertarian usually means ‘Anarcho-Libertarian’; and in fact, many of my views are lower-case libertarian.

    To anyone familiar with the Political Compass, I can use ‘lower left quadrant’ as shorthand.

    Time for a completely new set of nomenclature!

    • Posted March 31, 2018 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

      It seems such labels have all been tainted. You can’t apply the label to yourself without bringing in the bad with the good. If you say you are liberal (or left-leaning, or whatever), some will think you believe in protecting the environment, against bigotry, etc. and others will think you are into virtue signalling, shaming, snowflakery, etc. The “shortcuts” don’t work anymore.

    • yazikus
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

      Time for a completely new set of nomenclature!

      Ready, set – go!
      I’d like the word ‘pragmatic’ somewhere in mine, please.

      • Posted March 31, 2018 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

        You read my mind.

    • Sadiq
      Posted April 1, 2018 at 5:19 am | Permalink

      Agreed Matt. I’m British and until fairly recently, I’d have called myself a liberal (perhaps centre-left on economics, conservative on cultural issues). However, I’m unable to vote for anyone but the Conservative Party in the UK since the Labour Party and Lib Dems have been taken over by radicals who both put race identitarianism and equality of outcome at the core of their appeal. I’ll continue to call myself a liberal (or perhaps classical liberal to make the point absolutely clear).

      • Posted April 1, 2018 at 9:14 am | Permalink

        Yaz and I just started the Pragmatic Party. You should start one too in the UK.

  5. Posted March 31, 2018 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    I can understand wanting to move away from any crowd that unjustly bullies you, but I have to say I think Lindsay is delusional in that video. Deplatforming is one thing, but saying that she left the left because “the left are trying to remove the nuances between white nationalism and white supremacy” is insane. Both are hateful ideologies, as is any nationalism/supremacy, I can’t see why this is the final straw for her.
    Also, her leftist credentials are iffy at best. It’s only really American conservatives who deny climate change in any significant numbers, and taking the bus does not a leftist attribute jesus christ.

    • yazikus
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      I don’t know Lindsay, but having followed this from the beginning it reminds me very much of those folks who claim to be former atheists when they then embrace religion. Makes for a hell of a redemption story. Other than her declaring she was part of the ‘left’, is there any indication she was ever a ‘leftist’?

      • Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

        Prof. Coyne says that in the second (earlier) interview, she says this in present tense.

      • Michiel
        Posted April 1, 2018 at 1:26 am | Permalink

        She just explained in the video why she defaulted to thinking of herself as a leftist. She cares about protecting the environment, believes in climate change, supports gay marriage and takes the bus

        • chrism
          Posted April 1, 2018 at 6:45 am | Permalink

          It’s surely true that just because someone was mean to you, your opinion on the ownership of the means of production ought not to change. But to cut her some slack, she’s a kid, she’s in way over her head, and she’s probably realising that she has become unemployable except by a right wing think tank that will exploit her pulchritude.
          I have every sympathy with her finding the right more friendly at present (not to mention more intelligent, witty and funny)but that still shouldn’t change her basic vision of the society she would like to live in. Views like that change slowly in my experience, whilst feelings about one’s fellow-travellers change from day to day.
          The sad thing is that she is evidently good-hearted, and trying to do the right thing by being honest about the world she finds herself in. I wish her well, but an overnight conversion to free-markets, charities instead of a welfare state and minimal regulation (along with whatever else the right believes in) is hardly a satisfying counterblow to the high-school-clique insults of the social justice left. If she wants to remain in that argument, she will need a much thicker skin and a steadfast hold on what she really believes (which is probably a traditional Liberal stance), however, I think she’s done her bit and sustained enough personal damage for now. Flirting with the likes of Faith Goldy isn’t likely to help anything.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted April 1, 2018 at 10:50 am | Permalink

            +1 (to everything except the right’s being “more intelligent, witty and funny”; it’s not, unless one finds derision to be the soul of wit).

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

      Yes, if she thinks there is really a difference between white nationalism and white supremely, she has fallen for their propaganda. They are all just versions of white supremacy and all in line with the same ideology as neo nazis and he KKK. Sam Harris’s Podcast with Christian Piccolini, the former neo nazi, makes this very clear.

      • Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

        If I get it correctly, “white nationalist” describes people like me who do not want uncontrolled Third World immigration.

        • yazikus
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

          How are you defining ‘Third World’ here?

          • Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

            Countries that haven’t capitalist economy and Enlightenment ideology. As an approximation, the countries outside EU and NATO. But this is not quite accurate – some countries such as Switzerland, Israel and Japan are outside these organizations yet aren’t Third World, while I count Turkey as Third World though it is in NATO.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

              Better to be more chary about associating yourself with “white nationalism,” Maya; it’s an ugly neighborhood to inhabit.

              • Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:56 am | Permalink

                Oh, I do not intend to march in any analog of the Charlottesville rally!

        • Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

          I hate terms that act as their own straw man argument. So how many in the US want “uncontrolled Third World immigration” and what do they call themselves? I count myself as liberal but I’ve never heard any of my liberal friends call for that. I think we all recognize that there are terrorists and criminals in other countries (and here too). I think virtually all of us support some kind of control over the number and quality (to use a coarse term) of immigrants admitted.

          • Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

            It is often said so, but I have seen successful efforts to replace “illegal alien” with “undocumented immigrant”, struggles to make the “undocumented” a protected group, protests against their deportations, sanctuary cities renouncing immigration laws, and protests against any effort to minimize Muslim immigration.

            • Posted March 31, 2018 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

              Yes, I don’t like that term either as it papers over the fact that people who came here illegally did, in fact, commit a crime. This is why reasonable discussion of these issues is so hard to come by but it doesn’t help when both sides misrepresent the other side’s position even by applying loaded labels.

              Most liberals believe you can’t just deport or jail 11M people, regardless of what you call them. There are many, many reasonable arguments why this is the case. That doesn’t mean we do nothing. Our government is partly to blame for the situation, not just the illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants.

              There shouldn’t be efforts to minimize Muslim immigration per se. Choice of religion is a constitutional right. There are also terrorists that aren’t Muslim and there’s a valid argument that even the so-called Muslim terrorists aren’t really all that religious. Anyway, a small minority of Muslims are terrorists or harbor terrorist ideas.

              • Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

                I agree that 11 millions of people could not and should not all be deported, and that most of the blame rightly belongs to the government that has failed to enforce the laws for decades. There is some similarity with the housing of our Roma minority – many of the houses are illegally built but they cannot all be razed overnight, the problem must be solved piecemally.
                I disagree about the Muslim immigration – I think that any country has full discretion in its choice of immigration policy (unless it is in EU or a similar formation), and foreigners do not enjoy the protection of the Constitution. This is my opinion of course, many do not share it.

              • Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

                Some parts of the US Constitution apply to all people, not just citizens. See
                Certainly a country has control over immigration but should also protect the basic human rights of all people. We certainly don’t have to take in anyone that we don’t want to but, of course, it is not that simple. Some feel that we have a moral responsibility to take in people that have been driven from their homeland. We also have economic reasons to take in very capable people from other countries. We have political reasons to allow foreigners access to American education. If only our politicians would discuss these things rationally.

            • aljones909
              Posted April 1, 2018 at 5:33 am | Permalink

              In the UK a common far left (which is today’s Labour party) position is that they don’t favour uncontrolled immigration. When pushed, they usually say that anyone who turns up should never be sent home. I saw an interview with a black British lady yesterday. She explained that persecution was not the only reason for being a “refugee”. Extreme poverty was also a legitimate reason to be admitted to the UK. That would encompass about 50% of the African population.
              Africa’s population is projected to quadruple before the end of the century. The migration pressures on Europe will be immense. As See Douglas Murray’s book, “The Strange Death of Europe”.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

          It really doesn’t.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

          This is what Christian Picciolini says.

          • Posted March 31, 2018 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

            Thanks for the link. Just as I had always thought, the new terms (white nationalist, alt-right) are just label-dodging. We’ve seen this over and over. When the public finally catch on to what people grouping themselves under some label really believe, the group has to switch labels in order to avoid the shade cast by the old label.

            This seems to be what Lindsay Shepherd is trying to do, perhaps without even realizing it. Rather than deal with the bad ideas floating around in her group, she’s trying to distance herself by merely burning her id card.

        • pck
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

          Nah, white nationalists strive for a ethnically cleansed white homeland, which I assume does not describe you.

          • Posted March 31, 2018 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

            I do not mind some non-white immigration, but I want it to be controlled, so that we do not wake up one wonderful morning with a Black Lives Matter movement in town.

            • pck
              Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

              You sound like quite the white nationalist/supremacist after all.

              • Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

                This is why I said I think that the term is applied to people like me.

            • allison
              Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

              What’s wrong with a “Black Lives Matter movement in town”? I’m white and I support the BLM movement (meaning “let’s reduce the number of shootings of black people by police”) one-hundred percent.

              • Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

                +1. The BLM has its over-the-top radicals as does any other group but statistics show that what black people are up against in this country is unfair and wrong. Almost every day we hear about some black man without a gun shot to death by police who get off with only a reprimand or firing at most.

              • Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

                Of course, you are free to support any movement you like. However, I do not like a movement unified by race which demands that police do not use force against suspects from this race, harasses ordinary people just because they are white, has a never-ending list of economic demands, bashes capitalism, and is against Israel.

              • Tim Harris
                Posted April 1, 2018 at 5:41 am | Permalink

                Good for you, Allison. I honestly find revolting mayamarkov’s despicable reduction of the Black Lives Matter movement to the caricature she chooses to make of it. But since she herself seems to be happy with the label of white nationalist and white supremacist, and has stated elsewhere that ‘races’ are best living separately (including the Jews, perhaps? — Eastern Europe has not been so kind to them), it is unsurprising. I recommend everyone to read about the case of Anthony Ray Hinton who was on death row in Alabama for 28 years for crimes he did not commit. He has written a book about the experience and you can find an article about him in the Guardian — and for the sake of those who are obsessed with the ‘regressiveness’ of the Guardian, I shall merely say that it is a mistake to suppose that provenance is necessarily an index of the validity or otherwise of what is said.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:06 am | Permalink

                Maya — Do you not see the irony of “I do not like a movement unified by race” being said by someone who’s just espoused “white nationalism”?

            • Posted April 1, 2018 at 8:04 am | Permalink

              What is there to fear from BLM?

              • Posted April 1, 2018 at 10:37 am | Permalink

                I see them as racist bullies.

              • Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:08 am | Permalink

                But what about the conditions they are protesting? Please tell us what you believe about that since it should be the most important issue here.

              • Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:37 am | Permalink

                In the original case which sparked the BLM movement – the shooting of Michael Brown, facts turned out to be very different than originally presented, yet this didn’t sway the movement’s members and supporters. More importantly, we have BLM Canada which performed ugly during a gay pride. Unlike the USA, Canada has never dragged Africans across the Atlantic to use them as slaves. The blacks of Canada are immigrants. If they didn’t like the conditions or the attitude, they could simply stay home or migrate elsewhere. Instead, they have gone there to enjoy Canada’s prosperity and freedom, and now some of them protest and demand special treatment. I do not wish our population to be “rewarded” for the acceptance of black immigrants the same way. Therefore I wish to know what has led to the genesis of BLM-Canada before large numbers of black immigrants are allowed here, so that we could hopefully avoid the same development.

              • Posted April 1, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

                All of which avoids my question. Do you not think the BLM has a point, at least here in the US? I can’t speak for the situation in Canada.

        • Simon
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

          The nationalist issue is far more complex and nuanced than the left is prepared to consider. much easier to slather around labels. Canada, despite government attempts to erase history, has a European heritage. Without consultation, the gov adopted multiculturalism as official policy. Canada is supposedly a postnational state.

          It seems unlikely that you can have a state without some sort of shared culture dominating public life. Nobody seems to have answered the question of what culture shared spaces will adopt once European culture is erased. The only consensus seems to be that European/white culture is BAD and needs to be wiped from public space. The so-called white supremacists in Canada are reacting to the multiculturalists. They argue that Canada had a dominant culture and nobody asked them if they wanted to replace it.

          Rather than speculating, why don’t you critics and accusers of Shepherd read what her actual motives and thoughts are:

          • Mike Anderson
            Posted March 31, 2018 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

            They argue that Canada had a dominant culture and nobody asked them if they wanted to replace it.

            Why should Canada (or any country) let white supremacists guide its culture? We saw what happened the last time white supremacists took over a country.

            • Posted April 1, 2018 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

              It is more complex. Jews are now being attacked in Europe again, not by white supremacists but by people who are in Europe as a result of Ctrl-Leftists guiding the culture.

              • Mike Anderson
                Posted April 1, 2018 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

                Sounds like you’re blaming the attacks on Jews on the Jews.

              • Posted April 1, 2018 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

                No, I am not. If it sounded like this, then my choice of words has been poor.

          • Posted April 1, 2018 at 1:18 am | Permalink

            To me, the Ctrl-Left crowd makes Faith Goldy look good by comparison. Whatever her views, she came by herself to present them and debate peacefully. The Ctrl-Leftists attacked as a pack and silenced her without presenting any arguments. Of course, if she has indeed shown any pro-Neo-Nazi sentiment, I am strongly against it. But I also strongly wish the Ctrl-Left to reconsider their Islamophilia because it was Muslims, not white Neo-Nazis, who recently murdered a Holocaust survivor. The authorities and media of course try their best to obscure this fact. NYT: “The Paris prosecutor’s office declined to characterize the origins of the two people; Mr. Kalifat said the principal suspect was of North African origin.” The same media broadcasted loud the fact that Heather Heyer’s murderer was a white supremacist, and rightly so.

      • Simon
        Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

        Of course there is a difference between white nationalism and white supremacy. Discerning differences without making judgements is entirely possible. Not allowing for the distinction is infuriating to people who identify with white nationalissm and only adds to their sense of grievance.

        There is a vast difference between someone who feels that the races are incompatible in some sense and someone who others racial groups with the goal of reducing them to a disease to be eradicated. There is even a clear distinction between white supremacy and Nazism or the KKK. It is possible to regard another race as being inferior without harbouring any desire to hurt anybody. The feeling of disgust and desire to excise the unclean is what Hitler managed to engender so effectively.

        • yazikus
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

          There is a vast difference between someone who feels that the races are incompatible in some sense and someone who others racial groups with the goal of reducing them to a disease to be eradicated.

          I don’t know, seems more like a hop, skip and a jump. How can one feel they are ‘incompatible’ with another race without having some sort of deep-seated loathing for that race? What incompatibility could they be thinking of?

        • Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

          The terms sound the same to me. Of course, people can invent labels to represent ideas not connoted by the words making up the term. Let’s break these terms down. Both include “white” in a way that indicates some sort of supremacy. “White nationalism” refers to country whereas “white supremacy” does not. Does that means the supremacy is global? Not much of a difference there as far as I’m concerned. In defense of the members of these groups, nothing in their names talks about eradication.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

          Brothers from a different mother. This article sums it up well. In the end it is the same racism. It’s the “health magazine” Jehovah Witnesses give to you instead of the Watch Tower when they are trying to indoctrinate you.

        • Tim Harris
          Posted April 1, 2018 at 8:06 am | Permalink

          Oh dear, one feels so sorry for those poor white nationalists!

          But more seriously, do you, Simon, feel that races are incompatible in some sense? If so, in what sense? And if not so, could you provide us with examples of the reasons which white nationalists adduce in support of their beliefs and say whether you feel these reasons are good or not?

          ‘It is possible,’ you say,’to regard another race as being inferior without harbouring any desire to hurt anybody.’ Is it really? Can you explain why such a belief should lack serious consequence, and provide us with examples from history where such a belief has had no serious consequences? Do you yourself believe that certain other races are inferior to the race to which you belong? If so, why do you believe this? (I shan’t ask whether you think certain races might be superior to yours…)

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted April 1, 2018 at 10:17 am | Permalink

            And please explain what is meant by “white race” because it seems plain to me that I have more in common, as a white person born and raised in Canada, with a brown person born and raised in Canada than I do with, say, a Hungarian person born and raised in Hungary – but we are both white.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:13 am | Permalink

          Sure, there’s an ideological distinction between “white supremacy” and “white nationalism”; but it’s not enough of a distinction to make much of a difference.

          Both are conceived in ignorance, born in benightedness, and thrive in incomprehension. And both are solely the province of stone-cold racists.

  6. Posted March 31, 2018 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    She’s very confused. She seems more concerned with her club memberships than the ideas themselves. She says she used to believe in climate change, gay marriage, protecting the environment, etc. Doesn’t she still believe those things? Did her disdain for the Left’s bad behavior cause her to give up on Left beliefs? I assume not but she doesn’t make this clear in her video.

    When she started this “Unpopular Opinions” series, we might have thought that she was taking on the Authoritarian Left and applaud her effort. However, after watching this video, it seems her concern is still group membership and labels. So she now believes in leftish principles but she’s not a member of the Left. I don’t think the world works this way, or shouldn’t.

    • Mike
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      She does make it clear she still believes in “climate change, gay marriage, protecting the environment, etc.”

      • Posted March 31, 2018 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

        When? I must have missed it. Regardless, I assume that she hasn’t changed those beliefs. How can she then “Leave the Left”? Only in a world where group membership is independent of one’s beliefs. Unfortunately, labels like “Left” have gone from being handy descriptive shortcuts to group memberships.

        Lindsay Shepherd seems to understand the problem but her solution is to simply change her group membership rather than acknowledge the corruption of such labels or to simply fight against the Left’s bad actors and ideas.

        Personally, I see no choice but to fight the Left’s bad actors and ideas. Saying that I’m no longer a member of the Left is just not going to work.

        • yazikus
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

          Personally, I see no choice but to fight the Left’s bad actors and ideas. Saying that I’m no longer a member of the Left is just not going to work.

          I’ve long been of a mind that ‘you break it, you buy it’ – whether referring to USian democracy, the lefty-left, or whatever. We have a responsibility to try to make things better.

        • Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

          It appears as “sub”titles some 35-40 seconds into the video.

    • Michiel
      Posted April 1, 2018 at 1:37 am | Permalink

      You must not have actually watched the video then as she quite clearly has titles up on the screen saying that yes, she does still support those positions. And she didn’t say she “used to believe”. She uses the present tense.
      Not sure how you think the world should work then. Everyone needs to be a “member” of The Left or The Right and embrace ALL the principles of said group? Surely you can’t mean that.

      • Posted April 1, 2018 at 10:58 am | Permalink

        I was listening to the audio which was all in the past tense, allowing the possibility she no longer believed those things. I guess I missed her captions which stated she still believes those things. Frankly, that’s an odd mode of communication. Regardless, as I clearly stated, I assumed she still believes those things.

  7. Jon Gallant
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    One of Lindsay Sheperd’s inquisitors—who apparently did NOT apologize later—was one Herbert Pimlott. A perusal of his student ratings at Laurier reveals that he is a noisy regressive Leftist who incessantly bullies his classes. Or, in other words, precisely the sort of faculty propagandist which the AAUP always claims doesn’t exist.

    There are real difficulties (as Sheperd has discovered) with trying to maintain an adult Left outlook in the face of what becomes, in generation after generation, the commonplace embodiment of the Left. In the Old Left, we had Stalinists and Trotskyists exemplifying the “regressive” outlook. Then in the so-called “New Left”, the same mindset went Maoist. Today, it is busy de-platforming, throwing tantrums over pronouns, and allying with college SJ exhibitionists and Diversity bureaucrats in order to impose its views.

    Always, in short, on the lookout for modes of asserting POWER over others. Maybe, just maybe, there really is something in the axioms of the Left that pushes, at least with many individuals, in the direction of the gulag and the jiǎntǎo “struggle session”.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

      I think the secret sauce you are looking for, that leads to the gulag, is virtue signaling. The Left have always demanded it.

    • Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

      + 1

  8. Historian
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Shepherd is now a useful idiot for the right wing, even more so than the extreme left that she criticized with justification. This is because she now associates all those on the left of the political spectrum with those on the extreme left. This is like saying that John McCain is no different than the neo-Nazis because both are on the right of the political spectrum.

    I would like to hear Shepherd’s explanation of the difference between white nationalists and white supremacist. In her video she mentions there is a big difference. About a week ago there was a comment on this site from a person who tried to explain the difference. Apparently, white nationalists don’t believe whites are superior to other races, including blacks. They just want groups to live separately. I’m waiting for these folks to leave the United States so the land can be returned to the race that deserves it – the Native Americans. According to these people, white supremacists actually believe the white race is superior to others. Only the naïve with a total ignorance of history can fall for this dichotomy, which is total crap, of which Shepherd appears to have done so, assuming she doesn’t consider herself a white nationalist.

    There is a problem on many campuses today caused by the “regressive” left, although the degree of danger they present to America pales in comparison to the danger of Trump and the right wing. Unfortunately, Shepherd has no idea how to combat the regressives. The way to do this is to proudly say “I am a liberal. I am proud to be a liberal. I am proud for what liberals stand for. And the regressive left are not liberals, quite to the contrary.” In the 1950s, the far right attempted to associate all liberals with communists. Ultimately, the tactic failed, but lots of lives were ruined. The far right is tenacious in trying to promote their agenda. Liberals must be equally relentless in combating the lies. This is best accomplished by educating the public in what liberals actually stand for.

    • BJ
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      Like any ideological adherent, it’s very difficult to see the problems within your ingroup until they target you. Ms. Shepherd has received support from right-wingers during what was an extremely difficult time for her, during which she experienced what must have been a sudden and complete disillusionment with those who she thought to be righteous and a force for good. It’s not easy for someone who’s going through that to take an entirely rational approach to things. See my comment number nine below for what I think is a good explanation for why situations like this with Ms. Shepherd occur, and why the are regrettable, but entirely understandable.

    • Jon Gallant
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

      Unfortunately, the far-Right’s campaign of associating liberals with Communism was helped along by those Liberals who did associate with Communism, such as Henry Agard Wallace. Wallace, it will be recalled, allowed himself to be led around Siberia by the nose in 1944, where his Soviet minders explained to him how “volunteers” staffed the labor camps, and he delivered some indulgent, fatuous lines in response. In 1948, he ran against Harry Truman on the Progressive Party ticket with CP backing. To his credit, Wallace later broke with the Progressives, and apologized in print for being mislead by Stalin & Co.

      I think we are seeing a similar pattern today. Some regressive Leftists put on a “revolutionary” act, and are indulged, particularly at universities, by fuzzy
      liberals like President Bridges of Evergreen State. It is just possible that some liberal college administrators are beginning to realize (as Wallace did after 1950) that they have been gulled and manipulated by the contemporary illiberal Left.

    • Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      If Shepherd is now a useful idiot for the right, then I think the extreme leftists who harassed her, and all moderate leftists who stood silent, helped her to become one.

      • Tim Harris
        Posted April 1, 2018 at 6:09 am | Permalink

        I find curious this pitiful cliche — for one hears it over and over again ad nauseam, even from such as Stephen Pinker — that when someone, who is supposedly on the ‘left’ or is somewhere in the ‘centre’, cannot stand up for herself or himself in a responsible manner and goes over to the ‘right’, or becomes a ‘useful idiot’ for them, this poor, put-upon person cannot be held responsible for her or his own actions, and the fault must be laid at the feet of those nasty people who said or did nasty things to her or him. I notice that this curious process seems not to be reversible — one does not hear of pitiful people on the right who because of nasty things said or done to them by members of the ‘alt-right’, say, immediately renounce their membership of the right and become ‘regressive leftists’ or useful idiots for the ‘regressive left’.

        • Posted April 1, 2018 at 10:40 am | Permalink

          It is reversible – check Diana’s links about Christian Picciolini on this thread.

          • Tim Harris
            Posted April 1, 2018 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

            I think, mm, you should try not to force things so much into the Procustean bed of your prejudices. Picciolini left the alt-right because he couldn’t stand the lying, and in the end it is clear he saw the falsity of the racism they espoused. He appears to be a person who has a very much larger degree of honesty and integrity than the members of the group he departed from. He is clearly somebody who is his own man and takes responsibility for what he thinks and does. There is no ‘trope’, as there is in the case of people who leave the ‘Left’ to join the ‘Right’, that when someone like Christian Piccione leaves the ‘Right’ it is all the fault of nasty rightist bullies interested in ideological purity. It is that trope regarding the ‘Left’ I have grown tired of – not because there are not nasty Leftist bullies (because there are, and I have crossed swords with them)- but because it is pumped out ad nauseam, as though it were some sort of absolute truth, and often by people who, one would have thought, should know better. People should be held responsible for their own decisions if they decide to swing ‘right’, just as they should be held responsible for any other decisions of moment they take.

    • Simon
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

      I’d say the danger of Trump and the right wing pales in comparison to that of the extreme collectivist left. Far right extremists are very easy to spot and not very plentiful. Trying to blur the distinction between groups on the right will not help the situation. The danger posed by the far left is hidden because it uses words like equality and fairness. The zealotry and self-righteousness of the extreme left can allow them to descend into very dark territory without any self doubt. Communism/Marxism is growing. The Hammer and Sickle is unashamedly waved at demonstrations nowadays.

      • Historian
        Posted March 31, 2018 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        I will say simply that my analysis could not possibly be more opposite of yours. The chances of a Marxist takeover of the United States is about the same as Trump going through a day without telling a lie. As to the situation in other countries, I cannot say.

      • Posted March 31, 2018 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

        This is ridiculous. The far right is arguably in power as we speak. They certainly get Trump’s sympathy and some of his henchmen are even closer. On the other hand, I can’t imagine the so-called regressive left gaining much power anywhere. “Sister Snowflake for President”? No way.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

        That’s ridiculous. The far right has control of the executive branch of this nation’s federal government, the majority caucuses of both houses of congress, and three or four seats on the Supreme Court.

        The far left controls — what? — a few faculty lounges and some third-rate blogs?

        • Simon
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

          That’s actually a lot of faculty lounges at universities churning out hundreds of thousands of activists. If someone had predicted the shite seen on campuses like Evergreen and the complicity of administrations you probably would have laughed at them, yet it happened.

          It is very unlikely that the US would turn into a Marxist state or a Nazi state. The danger is the damage that could be done by politicians and civil servants steeped in ideology.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

            It’s rich being told to “calm down,” by someone who rails against the zealotry of the “extreme collectivist left” and sees a hammer & sickle under every bed.

        • Simon
          Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

          Neither Trump nor the Republican Party are far right. Calm down.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted March 31, 2018 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

            Trump is devoid of ideology, but he adopted a number of hard-right positions as a matter of branding when he decided to run for office as a Republican. And he’s made several hard-right appointments to the executive branch, including to his cabinet, as a sop to those who put him office. He’s also made some hard-right appointments to, and attempted to put several incompetents on, the federal bench.

            The Republican Party has been trending hard right for quite a while now, beginning with its “southern strategy” to go after George Wallace’s old voters and gaining pace in the last decade with its embrace of the Tea Party and then absorption of Trump’s own alt-right, birther base. That’s why upwards of 90% of the GOP continues to support Trump despite his obvious unfitness and incompetence, despite his mendacity and malevolence, and despite the cloddish disgrace he’s brought upon his office. Those supporters can be divided roughly into those who understand how awful Trump is, but believe he can still be used as a tool to advance their right-wing agenda, and those who’ve been duped by his demagogic bullshit.

        • Michiel
          Posted April 1, 2018 at 1:48 am | Permalink

          Then again the far left have large influence in virtually all the major tech corporations controlling our communications (Google, Facebook) and seemingly large parts of (higher) education. That is not insignificant and can turn into (more) political power in the cycle of an election or two. I don’t really think the republican party or even Trump==”the far right” either, although of course there are elements within the party that night be described as such.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

        That’s ridiculous. The far right has control of the executive branch of this nation’s federal government, the majority caucuses of both houses of congress, and three or four seats on the Supreme Court.

        The far left controls — what? — a few faculty lounges and some third-rate blogs?

    • Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      “The way to do this is to proudly say “I am a liberal. I am proud to be a liberal. I am proud for what liberals stand for. And the regressive left are not liberals, quite to the contrary.” In the 1950s, the far right attempted to associate all liberals with communists. Ultimately, the tactic failed, but lots of lives were ruined. The far right is tenacious in trying to promote their agenda. Liberals must be equally relentless in combating the lies. This is best accomplished by educating the public in what liberals actually stand for.”

      Well said!

    • nicky
      Posted April 1, 2018 at 3:18 am | Permalink

      Well said!

    • Diane G.
      Posted April 4, 2018 at 12:56 am | Permalink

      Well said!

  9. BJ
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    It’s unfortunate. I wish people would be led through such experience to the rejection of all tribalism — and I hope that’s where Ms. Shepherd will arrive — but I have seen so many in myriad communities be led to the other extreme when they discover that their side demands purity and isn’t what they believed it to be. As with the religious person who experiences the epiphany that they’ve been lied to, the ideological adherent who discovers the ideology’s flaws and is destroyed by the people they considered allies almost invariably just switches sides.

    We need people like Shepherd to discard the chains of ideology altogether if we’re to build a better society, but that’s rarely what occurs. And it’s understandable. If they people you thought were your allies for all your adult life betray you over the slightest infraction (usually something you didn’t even know was an infraction), it’s a revelation that’s terribly difficult to swallow, and it’s natural to hope that the side that supported you through that difficult period of being ostracized will be better.

    I completely understand why Shepherd feels abandoned and has switched to those who have defended her and welcomed her with open arms, and I still respect her for standing for what she believes. I just wish it didn’t have to go this way.

    • Simon
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

      Why are people assuming that Shepherd has “switched sides” in any sense. She has only said that she is dropping self-identification with the left, which does not automatically mean that she is joining the right. What has happened is that she has been forced to reconsider the label that she has loosely applied to herself. If anything, she is shedding the last vestiges of identity politics.

      • Gamall
        Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

        She *explicitly* said that at the end.

        ALong the lines of “does that make me a centrist ? A Rightist? You tell me, I don’t know”.

      • BJ
        Posted March 31, 2018 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        You are absolutely right! I was getting the impression from all these comments that I had missed something, and that she had declared herself for another “side,” rather than just no longer on the left.

        If she hasn’t given any indications beyond what she said in this video, then all she has said is that she no longer identifies with the left, and I applaud that because, as noted in my other comments, I think it’s the sign of any good thinker to abandon all such ideas of belonging to a tribe, especially in politics. I applaud her for leaving behind the idea that she fits into any tribe.

  10. Ken Kukec
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    … right-wing media like Fox News, who were, of course, the only part of the media interested in bad behavior by the Far Left.

    I sided with Shepherd in the initial kerfuffle in Waterloo. And, though I thought it unwise to kick off her speaker series with the likes of Faith Goldy, I supported her right to present speakers of her choosing free from interruption. But her most recent video above is tinged with narcissism and rife with confusion.

    Although there are individual conservatives over the years who’ve been legitimate free-speech champions, the rightwing as a whole has a rotten record on the issue. It was the Right whence came the authoritarians who gave us blacklists like the Hollywood Ten. And it was the Right whence came the bluenoses who banned Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer and Lady Chatterley’s Lover, among so many other books and magazines and movies.

    Fox News is certainly no beacon of free expression. Hell, it’s not even a bona fide news network, but a long-form “inspired by actual events!” fictional narrative, replete with recurrent themes and continuing, episodic storylines, targeted at resentful, old white folk. It puts on so many pieces criticizing the regressive left because it’s lost in the Fog of (Culture) War — having so much time to fill baiting Lefties (and the Clintons), and indulging in far-out conspiracy theories, because it refuses to cover the news of the day regarding the Trump administration’s myriad misdeeds.

    Ms. Shepherd may soon be in for a hard lesson that the enemies of her enemies are not her fast and lasting friends.

    • Posted March 31, 2018 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

      Here, here!

    • Simon
      Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

      I think the confusion is yours. Shepherd is very clear on what she is doing, which is merely dropping the Left label.

      The only person with whom she was unwise to associate is Mark Steyn IMO. The tactics and nastiness he has used in going after Michael Mann call his integrity into question. The likes of Faith Goldy, Lauren Southern and Pettibone are very definitely pro free speech out of principle. The censorious left are trying very hard to make that commitment out to be expedient, which it isn’t. What does appear to be happening is that there is a movement of people toward individualist classic liberalism, which is neither firmly identified with the right or left wing. A lot of those people are being lumped in with the far right by left wing media.

  11. kelskye
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Some of the more authoritarian left appal me in how they treat others, and I think it’s incredibly counter-productive to attack and harass people who even slightly disagree with you when in a democracy popularity matters. But to switch sides on an issue because of them? Never!

    At best, the ferocity of vociferousness of the moralist makes me more likely to critically examine those beliefs, but that’s true of anything with public prominence.

  12. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    I have to say that if I was Weinstein or Shepard, I would not have appeared on Fox News, as there is too much of their audience I do not want to legitimize- I might have consented to an interview with National Review though.

    But this does indeed personify the conflict between the University as a truth institution vs. a social justice institution.

  13. Posted March 31, 2018 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    First off, whether she’s on the Left, depends on her views, not whether she likes other people who have similar views. Woke Culture, intersectionality etc is also not “The Left”. It might seem like it, because they are vocal, and constantly signal how they oppose Republicans, but that doesn’t make them Left politically. The political tradition on the American continent has little to do with Left and Right as Europeans understand it (and it comes from an European context).

    Woke people aren’t Left, they are American Democrats (or a Canadian twin), more right-wing on many issues than standard conservatives(!) in North Western Europe. US woke culture is a syncretism, like fascism, that contains elements from many sides and corners. Their postmodern identitarianism smells of Heidegger. They want a woke belief system that integrates everything and is integrated into everything, structured around “being” — or identity.

    Role model on the Democratic side, and leader of the woke movement Linda Sarsour is a theocrat who repeatedly praised Sharia Law. The founders of the Critical Race Theory framework (from which the woke movement is an offshoot) write, they question both liberalism and the Enlightenment tradition (Delgado & Stefancic 2006, 2008), also somewhat Heideggerian. The movement’s origins lie in law schools; not bastions of the Left. Woke culture is famous for its minority nationalism or segregationism (safe spaces and the crime of cultural appropriation are expressions of that).

    Woke opinion leaders within the atheist-skeptics-secular movement are race and gender identitarians, the kind that has destroyed the genuinely left Occupy movements with their identitarianism. They were also notable Clintonians who used smear tactics against Sanders’ supporters, like “bernie bros”, or “brogressive” who they painted — as usual — as insufficiently woke, i.e. not enough postmodern identitarian. Typical left issues, like class and poverty, are of little concern to the Woke (the original CRT movement showed much more concern for the poor).

    Another way to get at this is by comparison. If there was a pope of the Left, it would be Noam Chomsky. He’s diametrically opposite to most, certainly core aspects, of the woke movement. He championed freedom of expression at risk and damage to his reputation. He’s a psychological nativist, a position probably known here through Steven Pinker; he’s also an outspoken and sharp critic of postmodernism (especially in activism). He repeatedly mocked so-called “Left Academia” and casted doubt on that kind of left.

    With that being said, I wrote last time, that I also didn’t buy Lindsay Shepherd as an actual leftist. She moves in the circles of the Alt Right too casually. Political scientists describe this movement as New Right, or Identitarian Movement, and it’s also — like the woke counterpart — a syncretism that contains on the surface also progressive elements. It aims to gain political influence through fear mongering and through faux “centrists” and “moderates” who blur enough to the right, so that neo-fascist, blood and soil ethno-nationalism can seep into the mainstream through.

  14. nicky
    Posted March 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Even apart from the Ctrl-left bullying she was a victim of, it is very difficult to support the ‘left’ (ie. Ctrl-left) on other fronts too.
    Say, I’m extremely worried about what is happening in Europe with Islam. Sadly, only right wing and extreme right wing parties appear to even acknowledge the problem.
    On the other hand I’m deeply pro-choice, pro LTBG rights, women’s rights, worried about climate change and even more about environmental destruction as well as accelerated loss of biodiversity and extinction (not to mention secularity and atheism). In fact the first three are the main reasons I fear Islam.
    The problem is that there is no political party that recognises the danger, and that does not do dismally on the other questions.

  15. Posted March 31, 2018 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    As stephen Pinker says, the greatest danger to mankind is political tribalism.


    • Tim Harris
      Posted April 1, 2018 at 3:10 am | Permalink

      Perhaps mayamarkov should read Stephen Pinker. I find in her attitudes and fulminations those poisons of old Europe against which that wonderful Austrian Jewish writer Joseph Roth, for one, inveighed, and which destroyed him, along of course with millions of others.

      I must say that by far the best response in this thread has been Historian’s. In her tape, Lindsay Shepherd comes across as childish and vacuous (and it’s a pity, because I certainly admired her for standing up to the bullying at her university) – there really does not seem to be much there that is genuinely politically thoughtful. And what, really, does she stand for? ‘I believe in climate change…, protecting the environmant…, gay marriage’ – this is really not to say very much.

      And as for the way the ‘regressive Left’ demonises those who disagree or do not agree sufficiently with them, such tactics are far from being confined to the ‘regressive left’, as years and years of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others, not to mention the smear campaigns against ‘Black Lives Matter’ and the students from the Parkland high school demonstrate.

  16. jay
    Posted April 1, 2018 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    I’ve certainly stopped identifying with the left, though on most issues it’s more of a case that they left me. On political issues, on moral issues, on common sense issues. And frankly I’m very worried about when they get back into power.

    I’m mostly a classical liberal (which usually translates into some flavor of free market libertarian) There is a growing number of atheists (such as Bob Price (who I’ve known personally) who’ve made similar shifts.

  17. steve
    Posted April 1, 2018 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Hi Professor Coyne:

    You stated in the OP,

    “The radicalized Shepherd made what I see as one misstep: she started an “Unpopular Opinions” speaker series at WLU, which is fine, but invited Faith Goldy, a nativist and white nationalist, to be the first speaker.”

    But in Lindsay’s own words from a Maclean’s article (One of Canada’s main news magazines), “Lindsay Shepherd: Why I invited Faith Goldy to Laurier” by Lindsay Shepherd Mar 22, 2018:

    “Originally, this event was supposed to be a debate about immigration in Canada–but every professor I invited to debate Goldy declined. One must wonder: if her arguments are so intellectually void and unreasonable, as critics claim, why was no one willing to take on her supposedly bunk arguments about white identity? Wouldn’t it be an easy win?

    Running out of time and with no opposing speaker to represent the pro-open borders side, LSOI decided to launch the Unpopular Opinions Speaker Series, for which Goldy would be the inaugural speaker with her speech “Ethnocide: Multiculturalism and European-Canadian Identity.”

    This is a similar situation to what has become a pattern whereby perceived “left-wing” or even mainstream news sources or institutions or think-tanks do not give a voice to people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, so when they are offered a platform by a perceived “right-wing” institution or news organization, or think-tank they are then demonized for taking advantage of that platform.

    I think Ms. Shepherd’s new Youtube video is in some sense her way of responding to this catch-22 situation that she has been pigeon-holed into by bad-actors.

    • Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      I think those that declined to participate in Shepherd’s “Unpopular Opinions” fiasco were simply being wise. A true debate on Canadian immigration shouldn’t and wouldn’t be titled “Unpopular Opinions”. Shepherd clearly had another agenda and they probably didn’t want to be part of it.

%d bloggers like this: