jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
Calgary, AB - /u/yycfail
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
325 points (80% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

canada

subscribeunsubscribe246,860 Canadians readers
1,476 here now users here now
We decided on this description politely.
Please note that users new to the subreddit might experience posting limitations until they become more active and longer members of the community. If you experience any issues with this, please don't hesitate to contact the moderators.
Upcoming AMAs
Who Date Time
Kevin O'Leary Feb. 7th 3:00 EST
Darren Fung, Film Score Composer TBD TBD

Rules

Detailed rules can be found here

Do:

  • Be excellent to each other!
  • Follow reddiquette[4]
  • Report content that is hateful, spam, or off-topic
  • Message the moderators when you report something. It can be difficult to tell why something was flagged

Don't:

  • Be rude or hostile[2]
  • Resort to insults based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs[2]
  • Post users' personal information
  • Editorialize submission titles[1]
  • Make low content posts (including images of memes, scenery, or generic pictures, etc[6][7]
  • Use link shorteners (i.e. bit.ly, tinyurl)

Canadian subreddit network

A complete listing can be found here

Provinces

+Cities

+Professional Sports

Hockey
Basketball
Baseball
Soccer
Football

+Post-secondary institutions

+Other

Links

Contact

The moderators of r/Canada reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.
a community for
324
325
326
submitted by Celda
Lately, I have noticed threads - popular ones with many comments - being deleted because they are "not relevant' to Canada.
I hate to say it, but it seems like these deletions are politically motivated - only certain types of threads are deleted.
For instance, this thread was deleted - even though it was a news article from prominent Canadian media, about a famous Canadian, doing something newsworthy. (The Vancouver Sun reporting that Pamela Anderson had announced she would campaign for men falsely accused of rape).
This thread was also deleted - even though it was a op-ed piece in one of the most prominent national media (Globe & Mail), from a well-known Canadian columnist (Margaret Wente), and even used Canadian statistics.
Again, prominent national media, by a well-known Canadian writer, discussing an important issue (free speech and violence to suppress it). Yet it was deleted, presumably for not being relevant to Canada (I cannot link to the thread directly as I never posted in it, so I do not have the URL).
Again, all the threads were quite popular and had hundreds of comments (at least the first two, not sure about the third).
Meanwhile, other threads with similar (ir)relevance to Canada - but do not have similar political affiliation - are left untouched. Example: The inventor of pineapple pizza defends the pizza, after it is criticized by the Icelandic president: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5vfnzh/canadian_inventor_of_hawaiian_pizza_defends/
No relevance to Canada other than being in CBC, and that the inventor is Canadian. Yet that has no issues.
Or this self-post complaining about the use of phrases like "libtard": https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5ropy0/it_really_saddens_me_when_i_see_political/
Or this post about a Canadian company's failed expansion into the US: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5vjujs/til_canadian_tire_tried_to_expand_into_the_us_in/
In fact, under the current rules, an op-ed in the Globe & Mail discussing the merits of a hypothetical proportional representation voting system would not be allowed, due to being unrelated to Canada. But, if they included one sentence about a Canadian party that might benefit from such a system, then it would be ok.
Clearly, this is absurd. I do not think that the rule should be used as a club to remove things that the moderators dislike. And certainly not when the thread already has hundreds of comments and a very positive vote ratio.
I propose that articles from prominent Canadian media (e.g. Globe & Mail, CBC, National Post, Postmedia) be whitelisted as not being able to be removed under the "not relevant to Canada" rule. I am open to suggestions though, perhaps there is a better way or something that I am overlooking.
Edit:
Some more threads that were not removed, as people seem to be arguing that the ones I posted are directly related to Canada:
This is literally an image of someone filtering out the_donald subreddit.
This is an American article (published in Tor Star, but written by Washington Bureau) about a former Toronto Star journalist (not even Canadian) accusing an American politician of sexual assault, outside Canada.
An image of a tweet from a former Canadian politician making a joke about an American politician.
An American article discussing a random, anonymous Canadian who publicized a video about Milo Yiannopolous.
These are all equally "not related to Canada", yet they stayed up.
top 200 commentsshow all 357
[–]orochi 134 points135 points136 points  (32 children)
I had a thread removed for editorialized title. It wasn't editorialized.
But this thread was up for days despite me modmailing and reporting it.
Likely only deleted because the OP deleted it (It says [deleted] not [removed]).
There's obvious bias in moderation practices here. The mods don't even bother hiding it
[–]c3luong 34 points35 points36 points  (6 children)
I agree with this. The mods seem to arbitrarily decide whether an editorialized title is appropriate or not.
[–]birdbrain5Ontario 25 points26 points27 points  (1 child)
Yeah and after talking about them in mod mail regarding how they decide to remove comments, they basically said in so many words that they have no objective standard for what constitutes a personal insult. The mods on this sub are not doing their jobs. They need objective, clearly defined standards of how to apply the rules, and any mod letting his political bias shine through in his actions as a mod must be sacked.
[–]lmac7 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Is there a line up of acceptable candidates imbued with the suitable professionalism for these unpaid positions?
If not, no one will be solving these sorts of problems any time soon.
[–]redalastorQuébec 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
I had a video from a self-declared proud Canadian about the benefits of bilingualism removed because he made a joke about Canada being the 51th state.
Removal reason : That joke is offensive to Canadians.
[–]LIB_SPENDING_MACHINEOntario 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
Care to share information about the thread that was removed?
[–]LIB_SPENDING_MACHINEOntario 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
Title of the video: A flawless strategy to get answers from Trudeau
Title of your post: A flawless strategy to get answers from Trudeau: Ask him for a selfie
Some could interpret the words you added in as editoralization. Best just to keep the title of the post, then moderators don't need to use their discretion.
[–]orochi 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Fair enough, thought it was a line from the video if I'm recalling it properly. But it certainly wasn't editorialized nearly as much as the other one i linked that was posted around the same day
[–]bipolar_sky_fairy 73 points74 points75 points  (23 children)
Can we also get rid of all the ones that are just people complaining about their phone bill, postal service, amazon shipment and/or online shopping experiences?
[–]Cheese1 15 points16 points17 points  (0 children)
Haha I just started to notice that trend lol Also add in people who want to immigrate here but are too lazy to do a Google search.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] 7 points8 points9 points  (3 children)
Can we also get rid of all the ones that are just people complaining about their phone bill, postal service, amazon shipment and/or online shopping experiences?
I routinely remove these for low-content although some of the other moderators leave these up. In my opinion virtually all of these posters' questions can be easily resolved using google, or contacting the post office/cell phone service provider, etc., or by going to a subreddit where their question would be more appropriate and far more quickly answered.
For example, just the other day I removed this self-post: Advice please: How to house train "outside" dogs to mess inside (due to new living arrangements). I removed this post as it was not related to Canada. In response, the moderating team received a bizarre Modmail complaining:
Instead of being unhelpful and just deleting the post, how about opening a subreddit relating to pets for people moving there.
That's right, instead of posting their question about how to train their dogs to pee inside to an appropriate subreddit like /r/dogs, they angrily demanded that the Moderating Team create a specific subreddit to address their query.
[–]PhallindromeBritish Columbia 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
The twist; /r/reversehousetraining is now the third fastest growing subreddit on the site!
Some users just don't get the amount of work that goes into building and maintaining a subreddit. I picked up /r/CBC two weeks ago and I haven't taken it public yet because the task load to start it is so daunting, relative to reddit, and I don't know anybody who's passionate enough about CBC and its programming to work on it with me.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Subs definitely take a lot of work, especially if it's not just a "hobby sub" and you want to attract posters to submit content and engage in discussion. A lot of people also seem to think it's very easy to moderate a forum - and it might be, if there's only a few users, but with a subscriber base as large as /Canada... it's definitely a challenge.
I don't know anybody who's passionate enough about CBC and its programming to work on it with me.
Hopefully someone will see you post and contact you! Good luck with your sub - tell me when you go public and you'll have your first subscriber. :)
[–]PhallindromeBritish Columbia 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Will do! I wanted a place where we can have episode discussions of CBC shows, I'm tired of not having anywhere to talk about X Company and Pure.
[–]crazedlizard 26 points27 points28 points  (7 children)
Don't forget tourists posting how they love Tim Hortons, followed by the usual comments.
[–]merpalurp 22 points23 points24 points  (1 child)
McDonald's has better coffee! Did you know know Tim's stopped baking their stuff on site?
Guaranteed same top comments every thread, every week
[–]frozenyogurttheif 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Well it's not like there's anything new to say on the topic, so you can't complain about that.
[–]dr_throwaway61802 6 points7 points8 points  (4 children)
"refugee enjoys Tims". Posted by a Tims shill, no doubt.
Would be nice if Tims was even Canadian
[–]frost_bitenOntario 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Can you add Tim Hortons to that list? Christ, it seems like people post articles are Tim Hortons exclusively to bitch about them
[–]OfficialRpMOntario 5 points6 points7 points  (4 children)
I don't mind those odd posts every once and a while
[–]Canadianman22Ontario 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
Especially an Amazon one where some moron is comparing prices on something shipped and sold by Amazon USA vs sold by some third party company here in Canada and Amazon Canada is just the market place.
[–]writesaboutstats 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
People who complain about this certainly mislead viewers as they are comparing apples to oranges.
That said, it couldn't be more clear that in Canada, the selection of stuff we get on Amazon is a mere pittance as compared to the U.S. That's not even getting into how it's also more expensive. So often the only option you get for buying a specific product from Amazon.ca is from a 3rd party company.
Plus at times, it's cheaper for me to buy a product online from a distributor in the U.S. and pay the customs fees, than it is to buy it from Amazon.ca or go to a local Canadian retailer that's four blocks away from me.
[–]Canadianman22Ontario 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
The problem I have with it is Amazon is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they give small merchants a better way to access the large Canadian customer pool using their website, then people complain that "Amazon is ripping us Canadians off, look at their US price" but if Amazon did not allow third parties to sell on their site, and when you searched for something and could not find it, then posts would be "Amazon does not give a shit about Canadians, doesn't sell XXXXXX product".
Amazon, like any retailer, does not and can not carry every single product. There will always be items they dont carry that people want. I get that some may feel that Amazon only carries a "mere pittance" compared to the US, but my guess is they try and carry what is more specific to Canadian tastes and buying habits. They will no quite quickly what sells and what does not and will change accordingly. Perhaps you are just trying to buy things that the average Canadian does not buy?
[–]Celda[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I don't mind them either, yeah.
[–]Celda[S] 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
We could, under a different rule I guess. Complaining about the national post service seems related to Canada though in my opinion.
[–]MoistIsANiceWordBritish Columbia 39 points40 points41 points  (17 children)
I, too, have had quote unquote "conservative, non PC" posts of mine removed by the mods. One recent deletion was a video of ex-Muslim Sandra Solomon who sought asylum in Canada when she was under threat of an honour killing in Saudi Arabia. The video in question was her protesting about the threat of allowing Islam to enter into Canadian schools.
[–]holomoronic 18 points19 points20 points  (14 children)
Powerful video – thanks for sharing. Here's a statement of mine that saw deletion for "rabble rousing" (still trying to locate the rabble I apparently roused) and earned me a temp ban:
My feeling is that Islam should not be recognized as a religion by Western societies (and certainly not afforded the protections of one) until it explicitly abandons all political aspirations and social injunctions. And good-fucking-luck with that.
Until then, let's call it what it is: totalitarianism with a mandate to establish a theocratic Utopia for Muslims.
Discussing Islam in sociopolitical terms was, according to the moderator, making "sweepingly negative generalities" of all Muslims and qualified as "bigoted." Rather than being able to identify which rules were violated, the moderator referred to their own characterization of my statement (not the statement itself) and my true intentions for having made it (as though they could know).
While I sympathize with the moderators for having what I'm sure is a largely thankless task, the conflation of criticism with hate speech is appalling. Yes, some topics are controversial. The mere fact of that controversy, however, does not provide grounds for arbitrary censorship.
[–]MoistIsANiceWordBritish Columbia 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Yes, exactly. I truly understand how many submitted posts and comments the mods are meant to sort through daily, but I do feel that certain controversial topics (Islam, BLM, the refugee crisis, etc.) do result in more deleted and locked posts than topics that are "safer".
The reason given for my posting being deleted was that it possessed low content, which I do not agree with because this video has so many elements to it that Canadians can debate. When I asked for clarification, non was provided.
[–]gynganinja 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Same here bro. The only time I get comments deleted are ones that are anti islamic. Meanwhile ones accusing me of being a bigot etc are left up.
[–]Boxsprings1 -1 points0 points1 point  (8 children)
Who are these Muslims who are trying to take over our government again...?
[–]holomoronic 18 points19 points20 points  (7 children)
You'd have to tell me, given as those are not my words.
[–]exploderatorBritish Columbia 12 points13 points14 points  (0 children)
FWIW, I think you made a particularly sane criticism of Islam there, and it's sad that most people who defend Islam seem to have a superficial understanding and are dangerously oblivious to the extremely serious issues at stake, and the horrific realities going on around the world. EG, people think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an "anti-Muslim extremist", completely ignoring the fact that she's under constant death threat from Islam, for leaving it, and daring to speak up, after a life of torture under it. People don't realize this isn't some nice cozy international version of the United Church we're dealing with. People also fail to realize that holding a religion accountable for policies, is neither racism nor bigotry, it's just basic moral accountability that we can't negotiate on, whether it's Catholics covering up pedophilia, or Muslims preaching death on people for things like being gay, Jewish, or leaving their religion.
[–]inkathebadger 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I had one removed about a safe being opened a couple weeks ago cause I editorialized the title (how one can do that about a safe?). I was like Reddit loves safes, it's not like I was saying it was Harper's kiddie porn or Trudeau's roman play videos.
[–]AkesgerothQuébec 9 points10 points11 points  (1 child)
The first one you mention is dubious because it's not specifically Canada related. Pamela Anderson may be Canadian, but the issue itself isn't Canada specific, nor is she planning to focus her efforts on Canada. The other two deletions are debatable however. Opinion articles in Canadian papers discussing issues faced by canadians do belong on the sub.
What's really damning though is the threads which aren't removed. The Hawaiian pizza one is a good example. So are the damned Tim Hortons posts which are basically just advertisement.
[–]Celda[S] 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
What about a news article about a famous Canadian winning an athletic competition, outside Canada? Let's say they were not representing Team Canada or whatever, therefore it is not directly related to Canada. (of course if they were representing Team Canada, then it would be directly related)
I find it unlikely that would be removed.
What if the CBC posted a news article about Michael Buble being accused of rape in the United States? Not to imply that good old Michael is a rapist of course.
After all, it's by Canadian media, about a famous Canadian, about something newsworthy. But it's not directly related to Canada.
Somehow I doubt anyone would remove that news article for being unrelated.
[–]VirginWizard69Ontario 33 points34 points35 points  (20 children)
The posts are deleted because they slant to the right. The mods here are pro liberal. They do not want to permit contrary points of view.
[–]KingofCanadiaBritish Columbia 15 points16 points17 points  (19 children)
The /r/canadianpolitics mods are the worst. They ban conservatives like it's going out of style, while a few mods openly support pedophilia.
[–]gynganinja 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
Ya fuck that sub. I got banned from there long ago by their Liberal hack mods.
[–]dr_throwaway61802 8 points9 points10 points  (4 children)
No point even going there unless you're left wing.
But, at least everybody knows it by now.
r/toronto isn't much better
[–]VirginWizard69Ontario 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
/r/toronto is a fucking joke. I wrote that I was a black man, and they said they didn't believe me. I was banned for a month. When I insisted that I was black and be happy to prove it to them, they banned me for 6 months. I am not joking. They are fucking retarded.
[–]lovehate615 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
That's insanity. If you saved those logs, can you send it to the admins or something? Would they even do anything about it?
[–]VirginWizard69Ontario 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Lol. They don't give a shit. They even mocked me when I suggested that. Go ahead, they said. They were on friendly terms with the admins.
They are a joke.
[–]dr_throwaway61802 [score hidden]  (0 children)
LOL. What a crap sub. Worse than I thought. F-em.
[–]medymLest We Forget[M] 81 points82 points83 points  (102 children)
I hate to say it, but it seems like these deletions are politically motivated - only certain types of threads are deleted.
Well, what can I then say to persuade you otherwise? Seriously not a day goes by that we do not get accused on holding any variety of biases.
All of the moderators here, and I genuinely mean this, are doing their bests to 'enforce' the rules we have established here as evenly as possible. It is a balancing act. We won't always get it right, but I can honestly say that I feel that the those on this team are acting with the best intentions. We might make mistakes, but we do try to find a middle ground.
On a given day we have hundreds of comments and posts reported to sift through. Some of the vilest crap I have seen online has been posted on this subreddit. So we try to use our best judgement and discretion. We won't make everyone happy, we know this. For every person saying Pam Anderson and her boobs are Canadian icons and everything newsworthy she does in relevant to Canada, is someone else pointing out that she is referring to laws in other countries.
I propose that articles from prominent Canadian media (e.g. Globe & Mail, CBC, National Post, Postmedia) be whitelisted as not being able to be removed under the "not relevant to Canada" rule. I am open to suggestions though, perhaps there is a better way or something that I am overlooking.
This is not, however /r/news, /r/worldnews, or anything else.
An article of Kim Jong-nam's death is featured by the CBC, as is Trump. By virtue of the CBC's coverage is it relevant to Canada? What about the Oscars?! Do Canadians not deserve keen insight from the CBC on how to plan an Oscar party?. Why not a delightful Aussie Meat Pie?.
Of course, the stories I offer are extremes of what Canadian media cover, but this is what makes the news on a daily basis. And yes, these are samplings of posts that have also been removed. We are always open to suggestions on what we can do better, but we are in a unique position to see the flood of these irrelevant articles that do spam the subreddit drowning out actually relevant content.
Clearly, this is absurd. I do not think that the rule should be used as a club to remove things that the moderators dislike. And certainly not when the thread already has hundreds of comments and a very positive vote ratio.
If we were removing things we dislike, a lot of crap would be removed. If there is something we dislike and think should be removed, we often consult with one another to make sure actions like this are balanced and done without bias influencing the moderation. On far too many occasions I am sending messages to my fellow mods or discussing issues with my fellow moderators on Slack. We have open lines of communication and it helps us try to do the best we can.
There are those who want drastically more removed, and those like you who want the doors flung open. So, please do not think that I am dismissing what you are presenting, but I simply want to provide you with my perception of things.
[–]StrawRedditor 27 points28 points29 points  (12 children)
Well, what can I then say to persuade you otherwise? Seriously not a day goes by that we do not get accused on holding any variety of biases.
You could tell us the reasons for those posts being deleted.
Going through the rules for that Pamela post as an example:
1) The headline wasn't editorialized.
2) don't see how it's rabble-rousing.
3) Wasn't personal promotion.
I'm pretty sure it related to Canada.
So really, how does it surprise you that you're being accused of bias, when that's really the only possibility left?
[–]Celda[S] 25 points26 points27 points  (11 children)
I assume the mod who removed it would argue it's not related to Canada. Since it's merely an article from major Canadian media, about a famous Canadian doing something newsworthy, but that action does not directly relate to Canada.
Meanwhile, an article from American media about a random anonymous teenage girl who pointed to a video of Milo Yiannoupolous seems ok: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5w188f/meet_the_16yearold_canadian_girl_who_took_down/
Granted, that is only 6 hours old. But I've seen similar articles about random (not even famous) Canadians doing something mildly newsworthy but otherwise unrelated to Canada, and that seems to be ok.
[–]sidoZe 8 points9 points10 points  (6 children)
Since it's merely an article from major Canadian media, about a famous Canadian doing something newsworthy,
By that logic should all the articles about Penny Oleksiak winning in Rio have been removed? It's just about a Canadian winning a swimming competition, doesn't really relate to Canada after all......
[–]TheVirtuousVulcanLest We Forget 5 points6 points7 points  (5 children)
I would suggest that a famous Canadian athlete winning an international competition, while representing Canada, is drastically different than Pamela Anderson, who really doesn't even live here anymore, merely making comments about things that are un-related to Canada.
[–]Celda[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
I would suggest that a famous Canadian athlete winning an international competition, while representing Canada
For sure, Team Canada winning a competition outside Canada is surely related to Canada.
But a Canadian athlete, not representing Canada (and merely representing themselves), winning a foreign competition would be equally unrelated to Canada.
Yet I do not think such a news article would be removed.
[–]Pedervel 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
So false accusations of rape are un-related to Canada? Please explain.
[–]Celda[S] 32 points33 points34 points  (0 children)
Also, what about the threads I mentioned that did not get removed? Like the pineapple pizza one, or the "libtards" one.
You can't tell me that the moderators didn't see them, they had hundreds of comments and were on the front page.
Clearly they have similar ir(relevance) to Canada, yet they seem fine. Which I am ok with - I am not saying they should be deleted.
just also think that a news article about a prominent Canadian doing something newsworthy should not be deleted.
[–]Under_the_Milky_WayOutside Canada 16 points17 points18 points  (15 children)
My biggest frustration is with all the duplicate reposts of major news stories. Why aren't they dealt with faster? It just pollutes the sub and dilutes the conversation.
I have reported duplicates that are still up 9 hours later.
[–]medymLest We Forget 7 points8 points9 points  (5 children)
My biggest frustration is with all the duplicate reposts of major news stories. Why aren't they dealt with faster? It just pollutes the sub and dilutes the conversation.
It's a peeve of mine as well. That said sadly some people try to use the report function to bait mod action for posts they don't like. It's shocking really. So when a post is reported as a duplicate we often look for that duplicate before removing.
We don't get them all, but we do try.
[–]losstriangle 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
For what it's worth, I think you guys are doing a good job and are extremely tolerant in what you allow. I understand it takes time because you have to triage. A duplicate link can wait if there are a bunch of inflammatory comments to be dealt with.
I hope you're getting paid for this because nobody should have to slog through internet garbage for free.
[–]KingofCanadiaBritish Columbia 8 points9 points10 points  (2 children)
The circlejerking of "we are Canadian so we must accept refugee's" posts that happen over, and over, and over need to end if you guys are going to censor the opposite sides posts.
[–]medymLest We Forget 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
The circlejerking of "we are Canadian so we must accept refugee's" posts that happen over, and over, and over need to end if you guys are going to censor the opposite sides posts.
I cannot tell the CBC or CTV how to report, but I can appreciate your frustration. I think we are at the point where people know they can sponsor refugees. With that said, we are not censoring any side of the discussion, much to some people's frustration. If someone breaks the rules by posting something antagonistic, we will aim to remove it regardless of the subject or side of the argument it defends/attacks.
[–]adequatehunch 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Bit of a tangent, but is there a way for you guys to change the reporting options when using the Reddit app? They're just the standard ones rather than the unique to the subreddit ones I see when on PC. If there is a post or comment I feel needs to be reported then it's almost like I have to pick a random one and hope you guys look at it to see what the actual reason is.
[–]itchyscratchy4545 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
I posted an updated CBC story after the Radita's were found guilty of murder yesterday. It was breaking news. It was up for a bit and then removed - the reason being there were too many posts about it (there was 1 post that was submitted hours before the verdict was in). There's a new post about it on the front page now though. It seems so arbitrary.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
I can provide the answer for this specific complaint. I had removed many multiple posts about the Radita case when I was able to dedicate some of my time to moderating. I was then busy with other demands on my time (the moderators have jobs and lives!) and returned some hours later to find that another moderator had approved a duplicate submission which had (by then) enjoyed a lot of attention and comments. So although technically it was a duplicate, considering it had been approved by another moderator and had been left up for so long, I felt it there was no harm in leaving it alone.
[–]redalastorQuébec 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
The conversation is worth more than the link so I also let dupes stand when they gathered steam. Reddit really need a remove and merge comments option.
[–]Under_the_Milky_WayOutside Canada -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Agreed, no rhyme or reason seems to be the norm around here.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
Please bear in mind that our first priority is dealing with reported comments that can be (and usually are) highly abusive in nature and which demand our immediate attention and action.
I understand it may be frustrating to see duplicates, but I get around to de-cluttering the form (removing duplicates and low-content posts) when I have finished dealing with reported comments. Considering that the MQ can easily top 100 reported comments at a time, almost all of which need to be reviewed in context, and which also demand an explanation for removal, it can take some time to get around to the duplicates (which are understandably of lower priority).
Please have some patience.
[–]Under_the_Milky_WayOutside Canada 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
I actually lost my patience a while ago and have started to visit less often for this and various other reasons.
Maybe the solution is to add more mods if the workload is that high.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
Sorry to hear that. I've been doing the best I can with the resources I have, but I'll try harder.
[–]Under_the_Milky_WayOutside Canada 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
It wasn't a personal criticism, I just want you to know that.
We all want to see the sub getting better all the time and looks like more help could be worth it.
I do appreciate your time.
[–]Celda[S] 26 points27 points28 points  (21 children)
First off, thank you for the reply.
Well, what can I then say to persuade you otherwise? Seriously not a day goes by that we do not get accused on holding any variety of biases.
I'm not sure what you could say (as opposed to do), to be honest. I don't think it is the entire, or even the majority, moderator team that is biased, for what it's worth.
All of the moderators here, and I genuinely mean this, are doing their bests to 'enforce' the rules we have established here as evenly as possible. It is a balancing act. We won't always get it right, but I can honestly say that I feel that the those on this team are acting with the best intentions. We might make mistakes, but we do try to find a middle ground.
Fair enough, but I don't see how removing popular threads with hundreds of comments are the best intentions - especially when that only seems to happen to articles at one political spectrum.
This is not, however /r/news, /r/worldnews, or anything else.
An article of Kim Jong-nam's death is featured by the CBC, as is Trump.
Perhaps news articles that are solely about a foreign event might not be related. But, that wasn't the case for these examples. I mean, under this rule, any op-ed whatsoever would not be allowed if it didn't specifically reference Canadian events, even if it actually was about an issue relevant to Canadians.
By virtue of the CBC's coverage is it relevant to Canada? What about the Oscars?! Do Canadians not deserve keen insight from the CBC on how to plan an Oscar party?. Why not a delightful Aussie Meat Pie?.
I don't think these are the best examples. These are not appropriate to a subreddit like ours purely because of the topic, and not because of the "must be related to Canada rule".
I mean, let's say it was an article about organizing a Juno Awards party. Clearly, that would be related to Canada. But I do not think it would be appropriate for this subreddit.
Or, take a recipe for cooking a specific Newfoundland delicacy. Clearly, that would be related to Canada, but again I do not think it would be appropriate for this subreddit.
I think you see what I am getting at here.
Surely there is room to distinguish between posting cooking recipes, and posting op-eds from the Globe and Mail about issues that are important to Canadians.
[–]medymLest We Forget 4 points5 points6 points  (20 children)
I'm not sure what you could say (as opposed to do), to be honest. I don't think it is the entire, or even the majority, moderator team that is biased, for what it's worth.
Thanks. I think it's important to recognize we all have biases. What is important, i think, is that we try to recognize them and in spite of these biases we continue to moderate impartially. I'm a conservative, so I know that influence my perception and opinion on issues. I think it's important from our side to be self aware and not moderate because we don't like something but how it relates to our rules. I'm not particularly fond of some of the anti-immigration/xenophobia shared here but if people are respectful in their arguments why would we remove it?
Fair enough, but I don't see how removing popular threads with hundreds of comments are the best intentions - especially when that only seems to happen to articles at one political spectrum.
What side is that? Because obviously my perception is different. I recognize your point though and I can appreciate from your perception that there might have been value to that continued discussion.
I don't think these are the best examples. These are not appropriate to a subreddit like ours purely because of the topic, and not because of the "must be related to Canada rule".
I mean, let's say it was an article about organizing a Juno Awards party. Clearly, that would be related to Canada. But I do not think it would be appropriate for this subreddit.
But why wouldn't it be related to the subreddit? Juno's are uniquely Canadian!
Or, take a recipe for cooking a specific Newfoundland delicacy. Clearly, that would be related to Canada, but again I do not think it would be appropriate for this subreddit.
Agreed. I still don't know how log drivers waltz is relevant to Canada but every year months someone tries to post it. I definitely see what you are saying and I'm not dismissing your suggestion, but it still leaves us, considering what is relevant to the Canada subreddit.
Surely there is room to distinguish between posting cooking recipes, and posting op-eds from the Globe and Mail about issues that are important to Canadians.
Where do we draw the line on op-eds? Cbc, and only them? Maybe Globe and Mail? What about post media? Or Rebel? Where do we draw that line?
I don't mean to be an ass, and I hope I don't come across as one, but where do we draw the line? Is Heather Malick ok but Ezra a columnist too far?
[–]exploderatorBritish Columbia 12 points13 points14 points  (10 children)
but where do we draw the line? Is Heather Malick ok but Ezra a columnist too far?
I think you just made an extremely good point.
Just having a Canadian speaker, and being about an important human topic, does not necessarily make an article about Canada enough to qualify for r\Canada.
With regard to the Rex Murphy piece on the Milo riots. Even thought the topic of that article, freedom of speech and radicalism suppressing that freedom, is of great and current relevance to many Canadians, the article didn't actually discuss the Canadian aspects of the affair. While it was a Canadian voice, Rex was speaking about foreign matters and general principles. If Rex had related the lesson back to Canadian events, then it would have been an article about Canadian affairs that might have been relevant to r\Canada.
From your description, the same could be said about the Pamela Anderson bit: not really about Canadian affairs.
As for the Margaret Wente article, it was mostly about female vs. male privilege, and although it did site some Canadian stats, again it fails to be particular to Canadian affairs, with no mention made of anything like specific Canadian policy direction or anything else Canada.
[–]Celda[S] 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
I would disagree.
Under your logic, news articles about Canadians winning athletic competitions in other countries would be unrelated to Canadian affairs.
Sure, it would be Canadian media reporting on a famous Canadian doing something newsworthy. But unrelated to Canada, therefore not allowed.
As for the Margaret Wente article, it was mostly about female vs. male privilege, and although it did site some Canadian stats, again it fails to be particular to Canadian affairs, with no mention made of anything like specific Canadian policy direction
So simply discussing an issue, in the context of Canadian statistics, is not enough.
Under your logic, a Globe and Mail op-ed about a hypothetical PR voting system, citing Canadian statistics of ridings and parties, would not qualify as related to Canada if it did not mention a specific policy direction.
I am sorry, but it seems like bias on your part.
[–]exploderatorBritish Columbia 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Under your logic, news articles about Canadians winning athletic competitions in other countries
Lets not be excessively strict here, I think it depends whether they serve as a representative of Canada in some newsworthy way. EG, the Olympics, and many other international games where teams from countries compete. Meanwhile, it might not be very relevant when Wayne Gretsky scores a goal for some team in LA, who he's played for for years.
So simply discussing an issue, in the context of Canadian statistics, is not enough.
The word "Canada" came up once in her article about female vs. male privilege. If the other stats were Canadian, she didn't indicate or mention it in any way, nor did she discuss the Canadian situation in any specific way. The article was about a subject in general. I could be writing an article specifically about Sweden, and still mention one Canadian statistic because it illustrates some point about my Swedish discussion. Her article belongs under some topic other than Canada.
[–]Celda[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
I think it depends whether they serve as a representative of Canada in some newsworthy way. EG, the Olympics, and many other international games where teams from countries compete.
You're absolutely right. I did not mean to imply that an article about individuals representing Team Canada in a foreign competition was unrelated to Canada.
On the other hand, an article about a Canadian athlete representing only themselves, who won an international competition, would also not be allowed under these rules as unrelated to Canada.
So say, Eugenie Bouchard winning an international tennis competition would not be related to Canada.
The word "Canada" came up once in her article about female vs. male privilege. If the other stats were Canadian, she didn't indicate or mention it in any way, nor did she discuss the Canadian situation in any specific way.
I'll list all the times where the article cited Canadian statistics:
The vast majority of workplace fatalities are male. So are the vast majority of workers in policing, firefighting, war and other lethal professions.
Embedded link that cites Canadian statistics on workplace death.
As for violence, men are the chief victims. Men make up three-quarters of all murder victims, and are far more likely to be the targets of more serious forms of assault.
Embedded link for Canadian stats.
Meanwhile, women are outperforming men at all levels of education, from kindergarten to graduate school. Women make up at least 50 per cent of Canadian law school graduates, and outnumber men at most medical schools.
Embedded link for Canadian stats for law schools and medical schools.
You're right, the article was about a subject in general. But it was in the context of Canadian society and using Canadian stats. It'd be one thing if the article was specifically about some other country, as you allude to. Then I'd agree that it is not really related to Canada. But it wasn't.
[–]exploderatorBritish Columbia 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Thanks for a fair and courteous discussion on the points :)
With the sports, I think it's a big gray area, and that's why we have mods to make the subjective decisions, and hopefully strike a good balance. At least the subject of isn't a divisive and bias prone like political subject matter is, where any moderation choices will step on somebody's toes, which is honestly just a hard problem with no easy or happy answers in broad forums like r\Canada. My best hope is simply that the mods will keep thinking honestly about that evolving balance, and keep in contact with the users, so that if they drift off course, they can reconsider and negotiate a fairer and happier balance. I think the most important point in all that is for everyone to know there is consistent good will on behalf of the mods, and not any particular and consistent bias in anyone's favor. If the politics becomes too divisive, they should filter it down as neutrally as possible, and I just wish them luck in that kind of hard task.
With the female vs. male privilege article, I'm actually going to hold it against the author that she saw fit to cite a bunch of Canadian stats while speaking generally, and failing to deliberately set the article as being about the Canadian situation. We see Americans do the same kind of maneuver all the time, as thought everyone can assume the USA is the representative center of the universe, and it doesn't need to be mentioned. In any case, in order for us to decide it was a Canadian article in any meaningful way, we need to follow a bunch of links, notice they happen to be Canadian stats, and decide that they happen to support the arguments, all in some way that is specifically Canadian, even though the author never said that herself. We need to infer something the author doesn't say herself, and we don't even know if our inference, that she intended it to be a Canadian argument, was actually her intention. For all we know, she intended to make a general argument, and didn't care that she mainly cited Canadian stats, and never thought about whether they are representative of the wider issues or not.
I say the female vs. male privilege article fails to be Canadian enough for this sub. If the article had attempted to be specifically Canadian, a trivial thing to mention, then I would probably change my mind on that, because at least it would be an explicit attempt to address the Canadian situation on an important subject that many people no doubt care about.
[–]medymLest We Forget 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
Thank you, I think that very accurately describes what I was trying to present and the challenge of what we try to balance.
[–]exploderatorBritish Columbia 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Thank you for taking the time to engage the community here, in the face of challenging and contentious subjects, where there are few easy or clear ways to settle some of the difficult worries and accusations.
[–]Celda[S] -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
Under that logic, news articles about Canadians winning athletic competitions in other countries would be unrelated to Canadian affairs.
Sure, it would be Canadian media reporting on a famous Canadian doing something newsworthy. But unrelated to Canada, therefore not allowed.
Or, a Globe and Mail op-ed about a hypothetical PR voting system, citing Canadian statistics of ridings and parties, would not qualify as related to Canada if it did not mention a specific policy direction.
[–]GoodAtExplainingCanada 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Also, Rex is an old guy who gets upset at virtually anything. Things he has been upset about before (Not an exhaustive list)
  • Sorting the garbage
  • Taxes on garbage pickup
  • The Internet
  • Not enough roads
  • Too many roads
[–]exploderatorBritish Columbia 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
LOL, thanks for the laugh :) I always thought Rex was a funny guy to see on TV, kind of a living stereotype in some way.
[–]GoodAtExplainingCanada 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Thanks for noticing! :)
[–]Celda[S] 11 points12 points13 points  (4 children)
But why wouldn't it be related to the subreddit? Juno's are uniquely Canadian!
I know that the Junos are Canadian. But, is an article about how to host a party - regardless of what the party is for - about what we want in this subreddit? Probably not. Not because it's not related to Canada, but because it's really not appropriate to the community here.
Or say, a trade report (meant for business and industry people) about the maple syrup industry in Canada, like the one done by IBIS World. Certainly related to Canada, but would it be appropriate to link here? I don't think so.
I think everyone can agree that not everything "related to Canada" is appropriate for this subreddit.
Where do we draw the line on op-eds? Cbc, and only them? Maybe Globe and Mail? What about post media? Or Rebel? Where do we draw that line?
As I mentioned, I think we should simply create a white-list of prominent and mainstream sites. Almost everyone, left or right, can agree that Globe and Mail, CBC, National Post, etc. are prominent and mainstream. And even those who do support the Rebel would admit that it does not enjoy such agreement.
And anything from there, can't be deleted as "not related to Canada", although it could be deleted on other grounds (like if it was simply inappropriate for the subreddit, such as a cooking recipe).
[–]YEGtoPG 9 points10 points11 points  (3 children)
I'd just like to point out that I noticed this story was also archived while it was becoming highly discussed. Even more strangely the moderator's comments are missing regarding the lock, something along the lines of not being relevant to Canada..
[–]Celda[S] 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
What do you mean by archive?
Even more strangely the moderator's comments are missing regarding the lock, something along the lines of not being relevant to Canada..
Yeah, I remember that too. I even replied to that comment.
[–]YEGtoPG 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
My reddit terminology might be off, I am used to php forums. All I know is that the post was trending and climbing on /r/canada and then it was missing (gone from /r/canada hot). I had to go into my browsing history to find the link again.
[–]Celda[S] 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
That just means it was removed.
[–]SteamedLobster 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
The Junos are Canadian, Newfoundland isn't, and discussion of Canadian culture is limited to news items. Got it.
[–]medymLest We Forget 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
The Junos are Canadian, Newfoundland isn't, and discussion of Canadian culture is limited to news items. Got it.
Not exactly what I was aiming to suggest. Perhaps a post on a unique recipe would be better aimed towards a food subreddit than this one where a post on the Juno's might not have a better place to be posted.
[–]redalastorQuébec 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Not exactly what I was aiming to suggest. Perhaps a post on a unique recipe would be better aimed towards a food subreddit than this one where a post on the Juno's might not have a better place to be posted.
I think that by doing so you are removing any whimsical nature the sub might otherwise have.
We don't remove that kind of things in /r/Quebec and it makes us a place that's more fun to be around than here (at least according a recent thread our users started to discuss that).
Why not try to experiment with relaxing the off-topic rule. You could use a friendlier and more cheerful atmosphere around here.
And if that doesn't work out, you can rollback that change.
[–]Celda[S] -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Certainly, I agree. Where then would the best place be to discuss say, a Vancouver Sun article about Pamela Anderson campaigning against false rape claims?
Would you say a CBC news article about say, Michael Buble being accused of rape in the United States would be unrelated to Canada? Not to imply that good old Michael is a rapist of course.
After all, it's by Canadian media, about a famous Canadian, about something newsworthy. But it's not directly related to Canada.
Somehow I doubt anyone would remove that news article for being unrelated.
[–]AkesgerothQuébec 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
Out of curiosity:
I've heard that the moderation on the sub is taking into account the fact that it's very much a public face for Canada and often a place where tourists/immigrants/businesses come to get an idea of what Canada is like. Would you say this is true? Like, when you see a post or comment, do you think "I don't want potential tourists seeing this" when you decide whether to leave or remove it?
[–]medymLest We Forget 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
I've heard that the moderation on the sub is taking into account the fact that it's very much a public face for Canada and often a place where tourists/immigrants/businesses come to get an idea of what Canada is like.
Uhh, I think we need to be aware of it, but that fact isn't a huge influencer. I think that consideration is more so a reminder to ourselves, and others, that we need to be somewhat patient of these kids of questions. Every day there's another "I'm a 20 year old in Australia looking to move to Canada. What is the job market like for history grads." We have some automod triggers to catch some of these posts with a boiler plate automod response with info, but some still get through.
So I don't get tired of these duplicate posts as much as "dae hate bell" posts as I know for many, r/canada is a geographical "default" for information.
So we don't moderate things because we are concerned about perceptions because we are not- but we are aware that we have different traffic because of this.
Would you say this is true? Like, when you see a post or comment, do you think "I don't want potential tourists seeing this" when you decide whether to leave or remove it?
So, it's not a consideration at all and I cannot think of an instance where that might have been a factor.
[–]AkesgerothQuébec 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Ah, thanks. That does clear things up.
[–]kochevnikov 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
If the mods were actually transparent, then we would know what you're up to.
Lack of transparency is what leads to these accusations. So it's really your own fault.
Mods should be accountable to the people they serve and should be transparent in their activities.
[–]medymLest We Forget 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
Mods should be accountable to the people they serve and should be transparent in their activities.
This is exactly why this post isn't being removed. I/we are completely willing to to engage in these discussions as we are today.
[–]kochevnikov 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Not removing a post with hundreds of comments is hardly a demonstration of transparency and accountability.
[–]Celda[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Thank you for not removing it and engaging in the discussion.
[–]iamnotarobotbruv 20 points21 points22 points  (19 children)
All of the moderators here, and I genuinely mean this, are doing their bests to 'enforce' the rules we have established here as evenly as possible
Horseshit. Completely politically motivated.
There was a thread with Ivanka starting at Trudeau that broke at least 4 submission rules. I posted a similar picture that was poking fun of Trudeau instead and the mods deleted it within minutes.
When I asked about the difference, an anonymous moderator (coward wouldn't use his username of course) told me:
Yesterday we permitted some humourous low-content submissions that normally would have been removed. We have returned to our usual policy of cracking down mercilessly on these low-content submissions.
We reserve the right to moderate with discretion.
Oh, and banned me for 24 hours for daring to question their divine wisdom...
You have been temporarily banned from participating in /r/canada. This ban will last for 1 days.
The mod team fully admits they pick and choose which rules to enforce if they enjoy the posts.
[–]Moistened_Nugget 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
At least you got a response. My post about the Toronto police squad cars was deleted because it was "low content." I'm only assuming the mods aren't from Toronto and don't like Toronto centric news, even if it's decisions are setting terrible standards for the rest of the country to follow
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I took a quick look at your user history and I couldn't find the removal in question. Did you delete it?
I can only suppose that a submission along the lines of what you have described may be deleted as it is may be specifically relevant to Toronto, but not really pertinent to Canada overall. In such instances, it might be a better notion to try posting to /r/toronto instead, where your submission would be more relevant and would enjoy greater attention.
[–]Sabo88 22 points23 points24 points  (3 children)
I've had many comments with great points using a questioning attitude that have been deleted for politically motivated reasons.
It's quite obvious to me too that this is a liberal sub, and they want to give the impression to visitors of the sub that we all think like the Mods. Hence, any anti Trudeau or questioning of people walking across the boarder will be removed.
[–]medymLest We Forget 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
I've had many comments with great points using a questioning attitude that have been deleted for politically motivated reasons.
I note one example in the last month where you opted to call another user an ass hat and a few other not so friendly things. I might suggest that the comments that maybe have been removed were done so because of the tone towards other users and not the politics of your post.
It's quite obvious to me too that this is a liberal sub, and they want to give the impression to visitors of the sub that we all think like the Mods. Hence, any anti Trudeau or questioning of people walking across the boarder will be removed.
I'd love for as many anti-Trudeau posts as possible (as long as they abide by the rules). I'd looovvveeeee it. We will still remove content that is a duplication or antagonizing other users though.
[–]Sabo88 16 points17 points18 points  (1 child)
But you also leave the ones where they say I'm the reason everyone hates Alberta and that I'm a giant liar who invented the great points about the lack of response by the left wing government.
You leave the ones where I get attacked, but delete the defence because the term "ass hat" was included in the rebuttal.
So, attacking personal character, insulting a city and a province is ok, even in sensitive times, as long as we don't use the term "Ass hat"
Copy that!!
[–]medymLest We Forget 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
So, attacking personal character, insulting a city and a province is ok, even in sensitive times, as long as we don't use the term "Ass hat"
Well we certainly are more attentive towards personal attacks than people who might call New Brunswick a swamp filled waste land, for instance.
There are thousands of comments every day, so sadly we do not see and read everything posted. If you feel like a comment broke the subreddit rules, report it. If you make us aware of these comments we have a better chance of taking action. Even if you respond to the offending comment we might not catch it. We are human. If you report or message us when thst kind of post is made we have a better chance to act.
[–]medymLest We Forget 0 points1 point2 points  (8 children)
There was a thread with Ivanka starting at Trudeau that broke at least 4 submission rules. I posted a similar picture that was poking fun of Trudeau instead and the mods deleted it within minutes.
There was more than one post of Ivanka staring. Dozens of them were made. So I'm not sure what what slipped through if any, but knowing the type if image you're referring to, many were indeed removed and similar Posts were removed earlier today as well.
Much to my disappointment I am unable to find the post of yours that was removed. I do enjoy poking fun at Trudeau, but since I don't know what post you are referring to, I can't really comment on that.
[–]iamnotarobotbruv 15 points16 points17 points  (7 children)
So I'm not sure what what slipped through if any
lol "if any"...
Hard to miss with 7000 upvotes...
[–]medymLest We Forget 8 points9 points10 points  (6 children)
Hard to miss with 7000 upvotes...
It may be a shock for many, but I do not spend every day on reddit. If I had noticed that thread when it was relevant I know I would have gladly removed it.
[–]iamnotarobotbruv 15 points16 points17 points  (5 children)
Your snarkiness aside, you've not addressed the fact the mods reply privately that they selectively enforce rules.
You would have removed it because it's a clear violation of low-content and posting images sections of our guidelines. But what good are those guidelines when another mod jerks off to anti-Trump spam and ignores them?
[–]medymLest We Forget 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
Your snarkiness aside, you've not addressed the fact the mods reply privately that they selectively enforce rules.
The mods will certainly use discretion throughout their actions. We know we are not perfect, but all we can do is try and find that balance.
You would have removed it because it's a clear violation of low-content and posting images sections of our guidelines. But what good are those guidelines when another mod jerks off to anti-Trump spam and ignores them?
I can't comment on what someone saw or perceived when they may have saw this post and not removed it. I know myself I removed dozens of these images and did so as recently as today.
[–]MarvelsBlackCat 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
What's worrisome about all your replies is you keep making it about yourself. /u/iamnotarobotbruv brought up a good point when they showed that at least one mod was selectively enforcing rules. Instead of admitting that is an issue and bring it up with other moderators, you keep saying that you wouldn't have done the same.
To put it bluntly, this thread is about you. It's about the moderation as a whole. While you are part of the team, you aren't the entire team. If you are doing your job properly and others aren't, there is still an issue at hand.
Instead of trying to wipe yourself clean of any blame, you (as well as the other moderators) should be looking at who is failing to live up to the standards. You should be discussing on you each moderate. Try to solve the problem instead of making this about you.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
Unfortunately you seem to assume that the moderating team can be completely consistent 100% of the time. Considering that we're not robots, and that we're all individuals who may have minor differences when it comes to interpreting the rules, you will see from time to time a submission that technically should have been removed, but may have been permitted by an individual moderator on the grounds that it's harmless fun (fun? heaven forbid!), or that it has already enjoyed a good deal of positive, constructive discussion and it would serve no point to remove the thread at that point.
[–]MarvelsBlackCat 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Your sarcasm aside (thanks for taking this discussion seriously!), no one is accusing anyone of being a robot. However, the rules are in place for a reason. If you are going to allow pro-Trudeau low quality content, then it is only fair that you allow anti-Trudeau low quality content. If you want to talk about fun, anti-Trudeau will be fun for people as well. Heaven forbid someone have the opposite view point.
I voted for Trudeau and I still am happy with him. That doesn't mean I'm okay with only pro-Trudeau posts being allowed. I want to see the anti-Trudeau posts as well. We as people don't learn anything if we only stick to seeing one side of the story.
Back to your sarcasm regarding fun. This is a serious discussion and it's disappointing to see both you and /u/medym take it so lightly. There is a time and place for snarky and sarcastic responses and this isn't one of those times.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Oh, and banned me for 24 hours for daring to question their divine wisdom...
Nobody on the moderating team banned you merely for questioning a moderating action. I took a look at your user notes: your comment was reported, and you were given a temporary 24 hrs ban for making a rude and hostile comment which has since been deleted by you (here). You can clearly see by the responses of other posters to your comment, that it was not viewed as a positive contribution to the discussion.
[–]sidoZe 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I agree, the "low-content" rule is almost comical in how arbitrarily it gets enforced. Every day posts that consist of just an image are permitted.
[–]GalcaryAlberta 4 points5 points6 points  (11 children)
On a given day we have hundreds of comments and posts reported to sift through.
Might be time to add a handful more moderators?
[–]scratch_043 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
And risk upsetting their status quo? Pssssshhhh
[–]medymLest We Forget 4 points5 points6 points  (9 children)
That is certainly something in the pipeline. Many would recall we took in applications two months ago and hundreds of people put their names forward. We are still going through everything sent to us for consideration
[–]tet5uoManitoba 0 points1 point2 points  (7 children)
We are still going through everything sent to us for consideration
Translation: "We are making sure their political biases align with ours".
[–]medymLest We Forget 4 points5 points6 points  (5 children)
Whose bias? I'm a conservative and I'm pretty sure /u/Perma is a lefty between orange and red. I appreciate the continued accusation that we have a collective political bias because it's a pretty humorous one. Reality is we all have vastly different political opinions and despite these differences we can still work very collaboratively.
[–]SmallTownTokenBrownOntario 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
It's honestly really weird seeing you get dogged like you're a liberal. Maybe I've been around here too long.
[–]medymLest We Forget 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Simpler times when I just got called Harper Con Shill, wasn't it?
[–]PermaCanada 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Can confirm, I'm a lefty.
[–]gynganinja -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
Tell George Soros I said hi! /s
[–]tet5uoManitoba 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I mean, it's no /r/politics, but sometimes I wonder at what I see removed and what's not.
[–]lemmox -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
I love how idiotic all the conspiracy theorists sound in this thread.
Mod: <perfectly reasonable point, we're working on it>
Mob: <BASELESS ALLEGATIONS! POLITICAL COVERUP! I don't have any proof but I compensate with snark!>
[–]kochevnikov -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
The mods need someone to moderate them.
I nominate myself.
[–]PopotuniAlberta 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
Well, what can I then say to persuade you otherwise? Seriously not a day goes by that we do not get accused on holding any variety of biases.
You could do what we all seem to want our leaders at all levels to do. Be transparent. Give people an easy to view way to see what threads were deleted, for what reason, by which mod. For many comment-level deletions, you guys are open enough to leave a deleted, and show a rule violation underneath, but for all those deletions that are just handled silently, make them just as publically visible.
The clearest way to display that there is no bias is to openly show us what is happening. No secrets.
[–]medymLest We Forget 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
but for all those deletions that are just handled silently, make them just as publically visible.
That's likely because a PM would have been sent to the OP, not necessarily as a reply. Modtoolbox is a pain in the ass sometimes.
[–]Canadianman22Ontario 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
What about public moderation logs? Absolutely it would be a pain in the ass but if there was a link to a public moderation logs with the reason a post was removed surely it would make everything more transparent?
I also do not mean every single post would be added to the log, say just ones with over 25 comments and/or over 50 upvotes.
[–]redalastorQuébec 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
What about illegal posts? Yup, mods have to deal with the cops for the shit some people post. At least I do (in /r/Quebec but given the size of /r/Canada I do not doubt they do too).
You'd need a way to nuke those. And then you pretty much compromised the initial idea that everything removed must be visible.
[–]orochi 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
are doing their bests to 'enforce' the rules we have established here as evenly as possible.
That post would still be up if OP hadn't deleted it
[–]medymLest We Forget 4 points5 points6 points  (4 children)
You haven't provided a link. Looks like you are linking to a pm.
[–]Celda[S] 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
I think orochi meant to link to this, as he mentioned in another comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5qxdhu/scott_adams_blog_the_canadian_option_my_most/
[–]orochi 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
I'm linking to a modmail.
It was the modmail where my post was removed for "editorializing" and asking why this post was allowed to stay
[–]medymLest We Forget 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
It was the modmail
Ahhh the new modmail doesn't link very well with mobile. Thanks for clarifying.
where my post was removed for "editorializing" and asking why this post was allowed to stay
As for that post linked it's a challenge to determine what happened as it was deleted. But I'm happy to look into that.
Edit- I presume you are referring to your tweet regarding the soldiers funeral who committed a murder suicide? While editorialized title might not be the best, in light of the overwhelming number of detailed articles posted on the issue, I suspect that there might have been already multiple posts already on that issue. It's a bit harder to get the context for that kind of action over a month after, but from where I am now both posts probably could. Have been removed considering a few different rules may have applied at the time.
[–]orochi 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I presume you are referring to your tweet regarding the soldiers funeral who committed a murder suicide?
No. While I didn't agree with that removal, I understood why /u/VelvetJustice removed it. I ended up deleting the post I made after it was removed. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5qerm3/a_flawless_strategy_to_get_answers_from_trudeau/
My post just has "Ask him for a selfie" added to the end of the original title
[–]dr_throwaway61802 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Medym: the calming voice of r/canada
[–]TheVirtuousVulcanLest We Forget 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
I disagree. Frankly, if you actually read the articles/posts in your examples, then anyone can see that those removed do not have a link to Canada (or have such a small link that it is not sufficient) and that those that remain do.
The posts about articles that were removed may have been interesting, but they were either entirely unconnected to Canada or they were related only in passing. The rules clearly state these should be removed. The Sun article about Anderson only had the connection that she was born here (and she hasn't lived here in a long time either). No content in the article concerned Canada. That's a very tenuous connection. The Wente article had only the connection that the journalist is Canadian. The article itself is purely opinion and not really about Canada. The Post article is about an actual event that happened in the US and isn't related to Canada at all - it is completely off-topic. I see no problem with removing any of these.
As for the posts that remained up... The article about pineapple pizza contains an interview with the inventor who is a Canadian. As boring as you might find the article, that is a clear link with Canada. The article about Canadian Tire failing to expand to the US is about the actions of a Canadian company. This is a very clear link to Canada and is not tenuous, like the other articles where the link was merely that a Canadian wrote the article or had been the one to say something. The self-post about the term 'libtard' was a discussion about not just the term, but it coming from the US to Canada and being used here. Again, a clear link to Canada.
It seems rather clear to me that you are attempting to make people think that the moderators are removing threads for political reasons in order to serve your own agenda. You dislike that content that you approve of and would like to have in this sub is being removed, even though it is in compliance with the rules, as I have demonstrated, so you claim that it is politically motivated. You probably hope that other people won't look too closely and will just see the apparent and superficial difference between the articles and conclude that you are right. But perhaps I am incorrect, so I will give you the opportunity to respond with more examples that prove that you were not being disingenuous. Of course, they must be from an appropriate time period to ensure that the moderators would have had time to choose to remove or not remove them.
[–]Celda[S] 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
The Wente article had only the connection that the journalist is Canadian. The article itself is purely opinion and not really about Canada.
Did you read it? Wente was directly citing Canadian statistics in the context of her argument.
The article about Canadian Tire failing to expand to the US is about the actions of a Canadian company.
So, a Canadian company doing something outside Canada, would be related to Canada.
But a Canadian person doing something newsworthy outside Canada, would not be related to Canada.
The article about pineapple pizza contains an interview with the inventor who is a Canadian.
And that is different, how, from the Pamela Anderson article?
But perhaps I am incorrect, so I will give you the opportunity to respond with more examples that prove that you were not being disingenuous.
They are easy to find.
This is literally an image of someone filtering out the_donald subreddit.
This is an American article (published in Tor Star, but written by Washington Bureau) about a former Toronto Star journalist (not even Canadian) accusing an American politician of sexual assault, outside Canada.
An image of a tweet from a former Canadian politician making a joke about an American politician.
And of course, the one I showed you last night (now 19 hours old and not removed) about an American article discussing a random Canadian who publicized a video about Milo Yiannopolous.
[–]kanada1st 16 points17 points18 points  (4 children)
This has been going on for awhile. Only left wing 'progressive' comments are welcome. Everything else will be banned in my experience. Ce la vie.
[–]kochevnikov 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
Given that I'm the most left wing person around here and I've been banned from posting on this sub about 10 times now (and a permanent ban from r/canadapolitics for disagreeing with the inherent fascist ideology of their chief mod), it's pretty clear that it's just a matter of individual mods acting on their own biases, rather than applying any kind of consistent rules.
The mods need someone to mod them.
[–]kanada1st 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I feel for you. I have been banned too and its very frustrating. I have taken a break from Reddit in a big way because the leftist Mods (in my case) are control freaks. Regardless, banning should only be used as a last resort for anyone no matter their political bent.
[–]adequatehunch 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
That's simply not true. You just have to be civil for your comment to not be deleted. It seems some of you have a hard time doing that.
[–]garlicroastedpotato 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
If you were here two years ago you would know moderation has gotten 10x better. People used to make a text post with nothing in it that just said Fuck Harper. This post would receive 3000 up votes and double gold. I have not seen such a low content post since u/medym was made a moderator.
It used to be that if Harper said anything upsetting to one person that one person would post every website covering it using editoriaoized titles and then would post all the mobile versions. You would see the exact same story on the top of r/Canada 20 times.
I think right now the subreddit is in a better place. The page has a variety of topics, variety of images. Maybe people still care too much about electoral reform and not enough about candid photos of Newfoundland dogs....but at least the electoral reform articles are different.
I have gone from having two dozen people harassing me daily in PMs to just two. Either the mod team is cleaning house or there are less assholes in this subreddit.
[–]Xsatis 17 points18 points19 points  (5 children)
This subreddit has the same cancerous moderation style as /r/politics
[–]duuuhBritish Columbia 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Oh, come on. This sub is not great, but let's not get carried away. /r/politics or /r/CanadianPolitics are way, way worse.
[–]LIB_SPENDING_MACHINEOntario 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
What do you mean by that?
[–]SierraNovember2Nova Scotia 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Anything non-progressive liberal gets removed or banned.
It's why /r/The_Donald and /r/metacanada were created
[–]ninjatune 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Politics was actually bought and paid for and taken over..there's no comparison to this sub.
[–]chipsmagee 13 points14 points15 points  (3 children)
I had a post re: election reform in /r/PoliticalDiscussion that got deleted after a full day of comments and up-votes for being 'too loaded'. I was told by the mods I could create a new post by slightly rephrasing my question and it would be approved.
Maybe this post will bring visibility and help. I hope so.
[–]KingofCanadiaBritish Columbia 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
The worst was when /r/news and almost all other major subreddits were actively censoring all information about the Pulse Night Club shooting in Florida because the shooter was Muslim. Even going so far as the censoring information on blood drives and donations. It shows that you can't rely on information coming from censor happy subreddits like /r/news, /r/worldnews, /r/politics or /r/canada. Mods have a clear-cut agenda.
[–]klf0 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
You had a post in /r/politicaldiscussion that got deleted? What does that have to do with /r/canada?
[–]Tumdace 10 points11 points12 points  (1 child)
You know what all those threads had in common? They criticize left leaning ideals.
[–]kochevnikov 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Not true at all. I'm an actual leftist, not a tepid liberal like most people who post here, and I'm probably the most frequently banned user.
[–]laimh_laidir 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Uh-Oh.... Looks like you are having too much to think...
[–]Reed_SolomonManitoba 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I feel the mods here are a lot better than the mods in a lot of other subreddits like politics or news. But their greatest fault is in curating submissions for the flimsiest of excuses. Nobody is perfect though and I hope it isn't intentional.
[–]DragonToutNu 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Why not just lock those thread instead of deleting them? Add the reason in the title why it was lock. If the lock wasnt needed you'll get message from users and you can make a decision about unlocking or keeping it lock.
[–]eastvanmom 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
at least its not as bad as the circle jerk on r/vancouver where merely mentioning "chinese" gets users banned on site without warning or explanation
[–]castliteManitoba 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Mods here are definitely delete-happy. God forbid you post anything too light or too heavy. Apparently, like Goldilocks, it can only be juuuust riiight....for their POVs.
[–]gynganinja 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
As someone who hates all the political parties in this country and doesn't identify as left or right or even centrist my only gripe is with the Mods deleting comments that are neither bigoted or Islamaphobic but simply critical of Islam. Has happened to me several times and I find it along with M103 very concerning.
[–]adequatehunch 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
Could you prove this by showing what you posted exactly? Because it's hard to believe it was simple criticism that got you banned.
[–]gynganinja 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Comment was deleted. I was not banned hence my ability to post. I'd have to dig back through days of post history.
[–]adequatehunch 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Ah ok well if your comment was just removed then it could also be one of those situations where the whole chain of comments was removed. But I'm no mod so who knows.
[–]abacabbmk 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
Good post. Clearly the mods here lean a certain way and I'm not surprised to see deletions of those threads.
Such is social media I guess
[–]medymLest We Forget 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Good post. Clearly the mods here lean a certain way and I'm not surprised to see deletions of those threads.
In terms of leanings we all actually have very different and diverse opinions. So we don't all lean a certain way.
[–]FapEnergy 12 points13 points14 points  (17 children)
Yes, I second this.
Freedom of expression is under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I understand this is a subreddit and not necessarily affiliated the Government of Canada. However I do believe the mods should uphold Canadian values to at least to comply with our Charter.
[–]cchiu23 9 points10 points11 points  (1 child)
but this subreddit is hosted on an american site :P
[–]Krazee9 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
First Amendment then, it's even higher on the list down there.
[–]Woofcat[🍰] 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
Frankly that's not going to happen. Reddit has rules that if enforced by the government would be against the charter. For example publishing someones personal information is perfectly legal, however site ban worthy here.
[–]FapEnergy 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
Im not really referring to the idea of the charter for legal purposes. I do understand it is a crucial part of our constitution. What i'm really trying to imply is that the charter is not just laws but an embodiement of Canadian values. Yes, this subreddit has zero legal obligation to follow any of the charter. But if the subreddit is named /r/canada I at least hope they're willing to uphold the values that the Canadian Charter represents.
I hope I've clarified my statement.
[–]Woofcat[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
I understand what you are saying, however the very configuration of reddit runs in contrast to the charter. Perhaps only in the freedom of expression can we emulate it. However the moderators are not democratically elected. There is no regulation regarding posts being bilingual.
These are both functions that are enshrined in our charter.
Je comprends ce que vous dites, mais la configuration même de reddit fonctionne en contraste avec la charte. Ce n'est peut-être que dans la liberté d'expression que nous pouvons l'imiter. Toutefois, les modérateurs ne sont pas élus démocratiquement. Il n'y a pas de règlement concernant les postes bilingues.
Ce sont les deux fonctions qui sont inscrites dans notre charte.
[–]LIB_SPENDING_MACHINEOntario 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
Section 2 is actually more restrictive than the current moderation policy.
[–]FapEnergy 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
Could you please elaborate further? I always thought the whole point of s.2 is to be unrestrictive to freedom of expression/religion etc. Ofcourse, I could be totally wrong. So I would really like to understand your point of view.
[–]LIB_SPENDING_MACHINEOntario 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
In the charter, section 1 allows for reasonable limitations of all other sections. So for example, hate speech can be banned legally.
[–]FapEnergy 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Yes, but you stated that section 2 is more restrictive, not section 1. Yes, I understand that reasonable limits literally start off the Charter. Yes, hate speech or teaching the holocaust never existed is legally banned. I understand the concept of reasonable limits in law. What I'm trying to get at is that as a whole, Canadians generally value freedom of expression, and that's why I pointed to section 2. The laws of a country are usually a reflection of the society's values.
[–]LIB_SPENDING_MACHINEOntario 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Our section 2 rights are more restrictive than the current moderation policy because of section 1.
There are quite a few people who post hate speech here. They are never banned, posts are never removed, mods do nothing because they feel the need to appear neutral. They are upvoted by a voting brigade to prevent being hidden via downvotes.
Unfortunately the internet is dominated by American culture and Reddit is an American website so we have to deal with hate speech as freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in the US constitution and we can't do much about it. It's just a reality we all have to deal with. Asking mods to enforce the charter would result in more moderation.
[–]klf0 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
The charter doesn't apply to private forums. You don't get to walk into a Boston Pizza and start yelling about how you have hemorrhoids. And you don't get freedom of expression here either.
[–]Celda[S] 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
I'm not sure what you thought you were contributing. The other person acknowledged that this sub is not the Government, and therefore the Charter is not binding.
But they said that they believe we should try to uphold the ideal of freedom of expression anyway.
[–]medymLest We Forget -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
However I do believe the mods should uphold Canadian values to at least to comply with our Charter.
Once Kellie tells me what those values are, we can talk about considering that as an option /s
I agree, freedom of expression is a powerful and fundamental freedom that we as Canadians are blessed with. We also must keep in mind that the very nature of Reddit's terms and conditions limit that freedom. There is no work around there. We need to abide by those rules.
Beyond that, and working within the rules, we also need to account for the fact that this social media platform is also a community. We get hundreds of new subscribers every day, and something as very simple as "Don't be rude or hostile" right off the bat limits freedom of expression. If you want to go outside of your home and scream racial slurs, well, I can't stop you. But if someone flings racial slurs here, we will. As I say in my other comment here, we try to find a balance.
When /r/canada posts make the front page of /r/all, yikes. Things get a bit rough in the modmail and modqueue. Probably once a day I can sit back and look at what people say on this site and really lose faith in humanity. I love our freedoms, it is one of the main drives that lead me to the military at a young age, but I come back to the point about balance.
[–]gynganinja 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Hahaha sick burn on Kellie bro.
[–]FapEnergy 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
First of all, thank you for a well thought out comment, it's really only in /r/Canada do we see this consistently.
The points you do make sense. I guess i should be more thankful of my rights in Canada rather than demand things.
That said, i just thought it was a little ironic that this sub, lovingly named /r/Canada is not so compliant with Canadian values. I pointed out the charter just as an example but it was just an example.
[–]Numero34 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
I concur
[–]andrejw 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
Everyone knows r/MetaCanada is best Canada forum, the true free speech Canadian forum. r/Canada is just a step above North Korean or Iranian media
[–]lmac7 -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
It's always a pleasure to have someone dump their persecution complex into a conversation. It would be so empty here without that. North Korea indeed.
[–]ScotiaTide 5 points6 points7 points  (4 children)
Have you considered that these deleted threads may have been removed as duplicates? I remember most of those articles being widely discussed here. Sometimes people post the same article multiple times and all but one get deleted as garbage collection.
[–]QueenLadyGagaQuébec 22 points23 points24 points  (2 children)
I regularily browse about 10 subreddits and this one is the worst for dublicates. Sometimes, the very same article makes it to the front page twice in 24-48 hours. Most big news get posted over and over again.
[–]PhinocioBritish Columbia 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I find /r/politics the worst for duplicates. At any time there's about maybe 7 or 8 total stories on the first 25 posts all from a variety of news outlets.
[–]Under_the_Milky_WayOutside Canada 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I have personally reported several posts as duplicates only to find them still up 9 hours later, there's no rhyme or reason to how this sub operates...
[–]Celda[S] 13 points14 points15 points  (0 children)
That could be possible in some instances, for sure.
In the two ones that I linked to, they definitely were not. Those were the primary threads with the most comments, and there weren't any others that I could see.
[–]borgaNorthwest Territories 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
You have to understand that Mod is one letter away from God. /s
But seriously, I had one post removed because I added one word to the title that wasn't in the original. Reason: I "editorialized" the title. And interestingly it was a similar topic to the ones that OP pointed out as removed.
[–]jesusporkchopNew Brunswick 5 points6 points7 points  (5 children)
This whole thread just sounds like people bitching that r/canada needs to be more like r/metacanada.
No thanks.
[–]flyingunderpants 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
Not really, they're bitching that removing conservative leaning press makes it seem like Canada is disproportionately left. Not contributing any conservative posts, I haven't noticed it. That doesn't mean it's not happening though.
[–]SmallTownTokenBrownOntario 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Many are arguing that conservative mods, who have been here for years and most people know are conservatives, are liberal shills.
It's hilarious!
[–]puffyanalgland 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
i seriously doubt that it is a lack of moderation that explains r/metacanada's content. less moderation would not uniformly or even especially change the minds of the masses of unique visitors to r/canada. people will type what they want, and ignore what they want, as long as they aren't having content and ideas hidden from them. just don't feed the trolls.
[–]adequatehunch 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Exactly. This OP is a mensrights subscriber as well it seems. He just wants to start shit and create a divide.
[–]Celda[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points  (0 children)
I personally have never once posted in metacanada, or wanted to.
I just don't want popular threads that are related to Canada, generating hundreds of comments, getting deleted, while similar threads that are of equal "relevance" to Canada stay up.
[–]ghstrprtn 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
implying that this sub, which is brigaded 24/7 by meta-canada Ayn Rand shitters, is actually run by libby-rolls
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] 0 points1 point2 points  (10 children)
I hate to say it, but it seems like these deletions are politically motivated - only certain types of threads are deleted.
You cannot possibly see the reports we receive nor the comments/submissions we remove, so you don't know what we are or aren't removing. Unfortunately some people either aren't familiar with this subreddit's rules, or are familiar with them and simply refuse to abide by them - and that's why their comments/submisions get removed. Unfortunately there's always a small subset of individuals who seem to believe there's a conspiracy to remove their posts for some convoluted reason... usually this manifests in an accusation of alleged personal bias, or some alleged shadowy agenda on behalf of the Moderating Team.
I can really only speak for myself on this matter, but when it comes to moderating a reported comment, I look at the content of the post, and if it is in accordance with the rules, I do nothing. If the reported comment is indeed in violation of the rules, regardless of who the poster is or what their comment is about, it will be removed. I don't play favourites and I don't care about the subject at hand: my one and only concern is whether or not the rules are being violated.
Of course, most people understandably become upset when their post is removed. We try to explain removals when posters contact us to ask, but even so many times posters simply refuse to believe us, even if the violation is clear-cut. You have no idea how many times I have tried to explain to people that there is no loophole that could possibly justify some of the vile personal attacks I have removed - and yet these posters will argue until they're blue in the face that they should have some special right to insult and harass others just because of a difference of beliefs.
Now to address your specific complaints:
For instance, this thread was deleted
Yes, it was removed as a violation of rule 6: Submission Content - Posts which relate to Canada only in passing (e.g. mens rights vs womens rights arguments) will also likely be removed. Although a Canadian citizen was featured in the article, the article was discussing events abroad and was only minimally related to Canada. Furthermore, the moderating team has learned that these "gender wars" types of threads unfortunately seem to bring out the worst in people and result in multiple reports, which is why in general these are removed. There are many other subreddits where interested individuals can go to debate gender issues, and unless the issue is very specifically related to Canada, you can continue to expect the removal of such submissions.
Or, this piece in the National Post by Rex Murphy
Once again, this seems to be clearly a violation of rule 6: Submission Content. The article in question does not discuss Canada, and in fact focuses primarily on the USA. The reason for the removal of this article should be obvious and clearly justified to anyone who is familiar with this subreddit's rules.
Meanwhile, other threads with similar (ir)relevance to Canada - but do not have similar political affiliation - are left untouched. Example: The inventor of pineapple pizza defends the pizza, after it is criticized by the Icelandic president: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5vfnzh/canadian_inventor_of_hawaiian_pizza_defends/
To the contrary, that article very clearly references Canada. It is a relevant and appropriate submission and as such would not be removed. Nobody reported it, either. Just because you personally do not feel it is relevant, does not mean it should be removed, especially since this article is not in violation of this sub's rules.
Or this self-post complaining about the use of phrases like "libtard": https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5ropy0/it_really_saddens_me_when_i_see_political/
That self-post was also not reported, and although it seems to be somewhat low in content in general, it is relevant to this forum. We regularly receive reports from individuals frustrated with being personally attacked (in clear violation of the rules). The use of these terms ("cuck," "libtard," "conservitard," etc.) do not contribute positively to any discussion and are in violation of rule 2: Rabble-rousing - Don't be rude or hostile. & Don't conduct personal attacks on other users.
Or this post about a Canadian company's failed expansion into the US: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5vjujs/til_canadian_tire_tried_to_expand_into_the_us_in/
This submission is relevant to Canada, was not reported, and I fail to see your objection to the submission.
I do not think that the rule should be used as a club to remove things that the moderators dislike.
Clearly this is not what is happening, as the members of the Moderating Team regularly approve all sorts of personal comments and article submissions with which we may personally disagree. So long as a comment or submission is not in clear violation of the rules, we will not take moderating action. However, those which are in violation of the rules, will be acted upon.
Hopefully this clears the matter up for you.
[–]lmac7 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
Thanks for taking the time to make this comment. I hope people will see the sense of all that you said.
Is r/canada becoming more politicized as a sub of late? Is that why people are getting a little irritated? Just curious what yiur sense of this is. I am in no position to judge this for myself.
[–]SmallTownTokenBrownOntario 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I've been on this subreddit for at least 6 years. The sub has always been political.
When I first came, it was very liberal. The longer Harper was in power, the more I felt the sub moved to the middle.
Now, I don't recognize the vast majority of these accounts. The comment quality has gone down a lot and it's more right wing vitriol than I've ever seen.
Just watching a bunch of conservative mods get called liberals in this thread made this concrete for me.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Thank you for your reasonable responses here in general.
I think that /Canada has always been politically charged, but that the "economic climate" of the past few years (not-so-great-and-looking-worse-every-day) has contributed to the unfortunate rise of radicalism on both sides of the traditional political spectrum. People are upset (housing/gas/food/school/etc. is too expensive!!), and looking for solutions, and for some people that means they need to blame something or someone that they perceive to be responsible for the erosion of their standard of living. This results in simplistic, reactionary comments from those who are easily influenced and who do not care to (for whatever reason) conduct their own research and think for themselves - and more frustratingly, who refuse to listen to anything that may challenge the narrative they've adopted.
[–]Celda[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
Thank you for replying. Edit: You are certainly right that I do not know what is being removed or not removed. Still, I am talking about my observations, which I acknowledge are not the same as a proven fact.
With all due respect though, I don't think you have the best judgment on this matter. There have been several times where you made antagonistic comments, and then you later deleted those comments.
For instance, in this thread where you deleted an entire chain of comments (including your own) where you talked about removing any comments that made accusations without sources - which would also mean that any accusations referencing The Rebel, or "alt-righters" would be against the rules if no source was linked, even if the claim was true. I don't think anyone wants that to be the case.
As I told you then, I genuinely felt threatened by your comments. There were a few others who should remember participating in that chain, like /u/zahlman for instance.
Yes, it was removed as a violation of rule 6: Submission Content - Posts which relate to Canada only in passing (e.g. mens rights vs womens rights arguments) will also likely be removed. Although a Canadian citizen was featured in the article, the article was discussing events abroad and was only minimally related to Canada.
Ok...and then you say - "This submission is relevant to Canada, was not reported, and I fail to see your objection to the submission."
"Although a Canadian company was featured in the wikipedia link, the article was discussing events abroad and was only minimally related to Canada."
Do you see the disconnect here?
Once again, this seems to be clearly a violation of rule 6: Submission Content. The article in question does not discuss Canada, and in fact focuses primarily on the USA. The reason for the removal of this article should be obvious and clearly justified to anyone who is familiar with this subreddit's rules.
It is an op-ed, not a news article. True, it discusses events that happened outside Canada, but the overarching topic is still relevant to Canada.
That self-post was also not reported, and although it seems to be somewhat low in content in general, it is relevant to this forum.
It's not talking about the forum though. This is what it said:
Title: It really saddens me when I see political polarity and terminology that is used in the US start creeping it's way into Canada. Anyone else starting to feel this way?
Post: "Terminology like "repeal everything x did"; "libtard", etc... it's all just disgusting. While political parties have differing opinions on how best to serve Canada, simply going against EVERYTHING the other party is doing is simply childish and destructive."
The relation to Canada is tangential, at best. It's just complaining about use of certain political terms, that are not specific to Canada, and that the poster even says originated from the US. The OP is not even referring to those terms being used specifically in this subreddit.
Perhaps you can tell me about these submissions, while you're here:
This is literally an image of someone filtering out the_donald subreddit.
This is an American article (published in Tor Star, but written by Washington Bureau) about a former Toronto Star journalist (not even Canadian) accusing an American politician of sexual assault, outside Canada.
An image of a tweet from a former Canadian politician making a joke about an American politician.
An American article discussing a random, anonymous Canadian who publicized a video about Milo Yiannopolous. Granted this last one is less than a day old.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
Warning: the kind of offensive accusations that you made against me personally will not be humoured, and if you persist it will be met with moderating action. If you wish to discuss your concerns about submission removals in a civil and rational fashion, without resorting to personal attacks, that is another matter.
Allow me to remind you of rule 2: Rabble-rousing - Posts which do nothing but dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations could be subject to removal and/or banning.
Don't conduct personal attacks on other users. Ad hominem and other distracting attacks do not add anything to the conversation.
This is why you have difficulties with article and comment removals: you seem to willfully refuse to familiarize yourself with this subreddit's rules, and even though these rules are patiently explained to you (and other "problematic" posters) time and time again, you stubbornly persist in refusing to abide by these simple rules.
"Although a Canadian company was featured in the wikipedia link, the article was discussing events abroad and was only minimally related to Canada." Do you see the disconnect here?
No, because the article about Canadian Tire is discussing a major Canadian company and its attempt to branch out from Canada to another country. It's a rock-solid submission. An article about a Canadian citizen that may or may not be actually doing something in a different country, is not comparable, especially when the topic at hand is specifically a reason for removal from this subreddit:
Once again, this would not be so puzzling to you if you took the time to familiarize yourself with /Canada's very few, very reasonable rules.
It is an op-ed, not a news article.
It's an article (which is defined as "a piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication") - it doesn't matter if it's opinion or news.
The relation to Canada is tangential, at best. It's just complaining about use of certain political terms, that are not specific to Canada
The divisive use of such terms, however, is a problem here in this forum, which is why the post was permitted to remain (as has already been explained).
That's a 10 month-old post. It was approved by another moderator who is no longer on the MT. I don't feel as if I should be held accountable for the actions of someone else, who is no longer currently a moderator, and furthermore should not be expected to explain something which happened when I wasn't even a member of the moderating team at that time.
Nobody appears to have reported it: that submission is also four months old. Furthermore the article goes on to discuss the complaint by the Canadian in depth. It seems to be a valid submission.
Another moderator has approved that submission: and I do not police or second-guess the moderating actions of other members of the moderating team. I probably never even saw it. You are again insisting upon complaining about another 4 months-old post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5w188f/meet_the_16yearold_canadian_girl_who_took_down/ An American article discussing a random, anonymous Canadian who publicized a video about Milo Yiannopolous. Granted this last one is less than a day old.
Finally a complaint that is current... this article was (once again) approved because the majority of the article discusses the Canadian individual who was involved, their specific actions, and the repercussions of their labours.
Virtually all of the complaints about post removals could be avoided had the posters in question made the effort to become acquainted with the rules, and - much more importantly - mindfully craft their posts so that they are accordance with these rules. Furthermore, your own complaints about the articles which have not been removed, are also based on what appears to be some unfathomable refusal to acquaint yourself with this subreddit's rules.
[–]Celda[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
Warning: the kind of offensive accusations that you made against me personally will not be humoured, and if you persist it will be met with moderating action. If you wish to discuss your concerns about submission removals in a civil and rational fashion, without resorting to personal attacks, that is another matter.
I apologize, I did not intend that to be a personal attack.
No, because the article about Canadian Tire is discussing a major Canadian company and its attempt to branch out from Canada to another country. It's a rock-solid submission. An article about a Canadian citizen that may or may not be actually doing something in a different country, is not comparable
I don't understand your arguments. What is the difference between a Canadian company's actions outside Canada, and a Canadian citizen's actions outside Canada?
That's a 10 month-old post. It was approved by another moderator who is no longer on the MT.
Fair enough. But we agree it's not appropriate, right?
Nobody appears to have reported it: that submission is also four months old. Furthermore the article goes on to discuss the complaint by the Canadian in depth. It seems to be a valid submission.
How though? The article is about a former Toronto Star journalist. The article does not say if she is actually a Canadian, but let's assume she is. So if she was, then it's about a non-famous Canadian accusing an American politician of a crime that happened in America.
How is this related to Canada, when the other ones are not?
Another moderator has approved that submission: and I do not police or second-guess the moderating actions of other members of the moderating team. I probably never even saw it.
Ok, but as a moderator, how would you say it relates to Canada? I do not see how it does. It's literally just a tweet joking that Donald Trump's dad should have withdrawn, without any reference to Canadian events or anything else.
Finally a complaint that is current... this article was (once again) approved because the majority of the article discusses the Canadian individual who was involved, their specific actions, and the repercussions of their labours.
Ok, so the article is in an American publication, about a person, who publicized the video of a a British man currently living in America. It has nothing to do with Canada other than the fact that the person is Canadian - which you have said is not really enough to make something related to Canada.
I am sorry, but I truly do not understand your arguments here, that you have used to tell me that some things are related to Canada and some are not.
[–]VelvetJusticeCanada[M] -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
I don't understand your arguments.
The links which you have questioned us about have already been addressed and fully explained. I am not going to address the same matter over and over and over again, because my answer will not be different.
Fair enough. But we agree it's not appropriate, right?
This is a different question. I would most certainly have removed it for one of two possible reasons: rule 6: Submission content - Posts generally lacking any content will be removed. & rule 7: Image content - Low content posts and images will likely be removed.
That being said, the moderating team may make exceptions for image content under certain conditions (relevance to Canadian politics, society, etc. or in the interests of breaking the divisive and/or contentious nature of various threads and lightening the mood of the sub). Personally, I will also approve certain posts along these lines if there is demonstrable and pertinent precedent, in the interests of fairness.
I am sorry, but I truly do not understand your arguments here, that you have used to tell me that some things are related to Canada and some are not.
Once again, this seems to be connected to what seems to be a willful refusal to familiarize yourself with our rules and accept the explanations given to you by the moderating team. If you haven't done so already, I suggest that you take the time to carefully read this subreddit's rules, and perhaps then the explanations which you have already been given will make much more sense.
[–]Celda[S] -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
The links which you have questioned us about have already been addressed and fully explained. I am not going to address the same matter over and over and over again, because my answer will not be different.
I get that, but I truly do not understand your arguments.
I promise you that I am not deliberately refusing to learn the rules or accept the explanations given.
I truly do not understand the arguments being made here and how they can be consistent with each other. Maybe I am just missing it and someone else will help me see it.
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
    [–]losstriangle 2 points3 points4 points  (35 children)
    I don't think there is anything wrong with removing clickbaity and inflammatory opinion articles, even if they come from traditional Canadian media.
    Sorry, but I don't see any merit in inviting people's opinions on whether men are falsely accused of rape and whether Pamela Anderson should or shouldn't champion that cause.
    Similarly, I don't see any value in hosting the torrent of comments arguing whether women are privileged or not.
    Banter about silly and lighthearted things like pizza toppings is not in the same ballpark and deliberately clickbaity and inflammatory dialogue that is offensive and hurtful to some people.
    So as non-moderator I support those deletions, even though I did not report them.
    [–]Celda[S] 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
    I don't think there is anything wrong with removing clickbaity and inflammatory opinion articles, even if they come from traditional Canadian media.
    Sorry, but I don't see any merit in inviting people's opinions on whether men are falsely accused of rape and whether Pamela Anderson should or shouldn't champion that cause.
    But not all of the examples I gave was an op-ed. For instance, the Pamela Anderson thread you mention was a news article, not an op-ed.
    Banter about silly and lighthearted things like pizza toppings is not in the same ballpark and deliberately clickbaity and inflammatory dialogue that is offensive and hurtful to some people.
    Sorry, but opinions - or even news - that you disagree with is not the same thing as "offensive, hurtful, or inflammatory" dialogue.
    I mean, would you apply the same standard to say, op-eds criticizing the Conservatives, or Trump? Somehow I doubt you would.
    I also note that you had no objection to the self-post criticizing the use of terms like "libtard", even though that would clearly be inflammatory under your argument.
    [–]countingloonies 22 points23 points24 points  (25 children)
    "Clickbaity," "inflammatory," "merit," in this context" are being defined by yourself. What's a meritless discussion to you might have merit to someone else and vice versa. I disagree that your definition should override someone else's and that someone's definition should override yours.
    If the articles were published in the Globe and the National Post, two of our most read national newspapers and moderators are removing them that's essentially the moderator saying "my opinion on whether this article is legitimate overrides Canadians' opinion."
    I'm not comfortable with that; and it's pretty misleading to call this sub r/canada if that's what being done.
    [–]losstriangle -9 points-8 points-7 points  (24 children)
    Just because they were published in reputable newspapers does not mean that they were news or not clickbaity.
    You can find people who think there is merit in debating anything if you look hard enough. There are subreddits arguing about whether the moon landing is real, whether the US government is hiding extraterrestrial beings in Area 51 and whether evolution is a thing or vaccines cause autism.
    That does not mean that these ridiculous things are worthy of debate in a legitimate forum. If you want to argue about false rape reports and how uppity women are for not recognizing their privilege, you are more than welcome to find a subreddit suited to those views.
    That doesn't mean it needs to be tolerated or promoted on a general interest subreddit where mostly sane and sensible people discuss things.
    [–]Celda[S] 16 points17 points18 points  (7 children)
    That does not mean that these ridiculous things are worthy of debate in a legitimate forum. If you want to argue about false rape reports and how uppity women are for not recognizing their privilege, you are more than welcome to find a subreddit suited to those views.
    On the other hand, an article about sexual assault, or an op-ed bemoaning the fact that most politicians are men, would no doubt be ok in your view.
    So what you mean is, what you want an echo chamber, and you want to claim that things you disagree with are "ridiculous" and not "sane or sensible".
    [–]losstriangle comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (6 children)
    I don't think you're doing yourself any favors in winning people over to your side by putting words in my mouth. You're offensive and disingenuous in your arguments because you personally attack people.
    Best of luck arguing with the flat earthers, dude.
    [–]Celda[S] 17 points18 points19 points  (5 children)
    I don't think you're doing yourself any favors in winning people over to your side by putting words in my mouth. You're offensive and disingenuous in your arguments because you personally attack people. Best of luck arguing with the flat earthers, dude.
    Sorry, but I used your own words, like ridiculous, sane, and sensible.
    I mean, when you say that people who agree with you are "sane and sensible", and imply that those who do not are arguing about the moon landing and similar conspiracies, you don't have much room to accuse others of "personally attacking people".
    Best of luck in your echo chamber.
    [–]losstriangle 4 points5 points6 points  (4 children)
    I think you're being intentionally obtuse and argumentative for no reason other than to be inflammatory. Any sympathy I had for your position is now gone, and quite frankly I hope the mods come down even harder on destructive people like you, because this is egging on the worst of Reddit.
    [–]Celda[S] 10 points11 points12 points  (3 children)
    I think you're being intentionally obtuse and argumentative for no reason other than to be inflammatory.
    ....you say, after starting out by calling the positions of others "inflammatory dialogue that is offensive and hurtful", likening them to "whether the moon landing is real, whether the US government is hiding extraterrestrial beings in Area 51 and whether evolution is a thing or vaccines cause autism.", and stating that such positions do not need to be "tolerated or promoted" on a subreddit "where mostly sane and sensible people discuss things."
    Note that those are all direct quotes from you. and not out of context or misrepresentative.
    Any sympathy I had for your position is now gone,
    That would require that you had some to begin with. Clearly you did not, as we can see from your words.
    [–]losstriangle 8 points9 points10 points  (2 children)
    You're wrong. I respected your right to disagree with mod decisions and welcome a discussion as to what goes on behind the moderation process. Your interactions with me and with the mods here have shown otherwise.
    Your refusal to acknowledge that indeed you're advocating for inflammatory dialogue that brings out the worst in people is more than a little distasteful. I could respect your position if you at least had could cough up to that, but instead you singsong like these are legitimate opposing viewpoints worthy of respect. Well, no more. Consider yourself blocked.
    [–]Celda[S] 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
    You're wrong.
    About what? Nothing I said was untrue.
    Consider yourself blocked.
    Please do. Feel free to leave this thread as well, the toxic rhetoric that you came in here with is very unappealing.
    [–]YEGtoPG 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    What's interesting is that I completely disagree with what you're saying in this thread and fully see where Celda (and /u/countingloonies) are coming from and agree with them; I think your own biases are clouding your judgement. Maybe read over the thread word for word a few times to figure out where you went wrong.
    [–]ironman3112 7 points8 points9 points  (13 children)
    If it isn't worthy of discussion then it would have been down voted into oblivion. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to discuss, especially if it is something that is written by a Canadian, about an issue Canadians are involved in.
    [–]losstriangle 4 points5 points6 points  (8 children)
    If votes meant anything, then there wouldn't be a need for moderators because the benevolent mob is always right. Except the benevolent mob is almost never right and gangs up on people. It's not all that hard to game votes, if that's what you're after.
    Mob rule is what 4chan is about, so if that's what you're into there are sites which cater to those needs. In case you haven't noticed, Reddit has taken on a different reputation and is not interested in hosting inflammatory and bigoted material.
    [–]ironman3112 9 points10 points11 points  (7 children)
    In case you haven't noticed, Reddit has taken on a different reputation and is not interested in hosting inflammatory and bigoted material.
    Just because you say these articles are bigoted, that doesn't mean they are. The articles presented were from relatively reputable sources and if you have an issue with the arguments, then take some time to refute them.
    [–]losstriangle 7 points8 points9 points  (6 children)
    All you have to show for your claims of legitimacy is that they were published in reputable newspapers.
    Why is that a marker that a particular opinion piece is legitimate? Are you not aware that reputable newspapers also publish horoscopes and comic strips? Is their veracity also worthy of debate? Or do you simply take them as the silly distractions they are intended to be?
    [–]ironman3112 6 points7 points8 points  (5 children)
    I think there is a difference between opinion pieces on topical issues and horoscopes/comic strips. They typically are more substantive and lend themselves to discussion in a public forum such as Reddit. Just because you happen to disagree with the conclusions in the articles does not mean they shouldn't be discussed.
    [–]losstriangle 5 points6 points7 points  (4 children)
    Neither horoscopes or op-ed pieces are subject to fact checking or editorial scrutiny, like news articles are.
    So no, there is no material difference between horoscopes and what op-ed writers say.
    [–]ironman3112 9 points10 points11 points  (3 children)
    There are differences in topics covered. Op-ed pieces typically cover topical issues and can generate discussions on said issues. Horoscopes tend to not have that sort of potential. To equate an opinion piece with fortune telling is disingenuous.
    [–]Northern_Ontario -5 points-4 points-3 points  (3 children)
    So everything up voted by the Donald to the front page is completely relevant?
    [–]Celda[S] 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
    Relevant to the Donald, certainly. Likewise, I'd say that most things upvoted in r/Canada is relevant to this subreddit (though not all).
    [–]ironman3112 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
    What are you asking? It's not a very clear question.
    [–]richEC 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Ok, lets all retreat to our safe spaces. /s
    [–]countingloonies 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
    "Just because they were published in reputable newspapers does not mean that they were news."
    . . . Okay, then.
    If you don't mind, why is your opinion more valid than our country's reputable newspapers?
    [–]manygoodpersons 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
    Sorry, but I don't see any merit in inviting people's opinions
    Seriously. We get far too many ill-informed famous-because-they’re-famous opinions pieces, most of which are of no higher quality or truthfulness than a reddit self-post, and often of less value than a reddit discussion of a journalist’s news article.
    [–]losstriangle 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
    No one would give a crap about what Wente or Murphy or any other op-ed writer has to say about anything if they had any well thought-out opinions. Their whole shtick is to write clickbait so everyone can rush over to their article and whip themselves in a tizzy over zomg, did you hear what X said about thing Y?!
    If Wente were to get stoned on weed brownies and dye her hair red, she'd be as famous as Maureen Dowd. If Murphy glued a black mustache on his face and used a bunch of nonsensical metaphors compiled from a magnetic poetry kit, he'd be Thomas Friedman. None of these people deserve the public veneration they get.
    [–]adequatehunch 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Here here. I fully agree. These people just seem to want to start fights and we really don't need any more of that stuff here. I'm very happy the mods seem to be good at getting rid of this crap. Hopefully they don't let the brigade of votes from those other subreddits sway them into changing this line of thinking.
    [–]StrawRedditor 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
    Sorry, but I don't see any merit in inviting people's opinions on whether men are falsely accused of rape and whether Pamela Anderson should or shouldn't champion that cause.
    No offense, but, who cares what you think or what you see merit in. More people upvoted than downvoted, which is why it was on the front page, which is why it deserves to be here (since it checks all the other boxes for being on topic).
    [–]adequatehunch 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
    Just cuz a post has upvotes doesn't mean it should stay. That's not how Reddit works.
    [–]StrawRedditor -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
    Votes were clearly the only thing I mentioned in my last post.
    [–]adequatehunch 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
    Just saying votes don't matter.
    [–]StrawRedditor 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    notsureifsrs
    [–]junius_maltbyOntario 1 point2 points3 points  (29 children)
    There are many reasons why r/Canada is becoming a flaming garbage heap, but the mods deleting things like Margaret Wente op-eds and Rex Murphy's apologism for Milo Yiannopoulos are not among them.
    [–]Celda[S] 17 points18 points19 points  (28 children)
    Rex Murphy was criticizing violent thugs who rioted in order to shut down speech they dislike. For you to classify that as "apologism for Milo Yiannopolous" shows that you probably do not have good judgment in this regard.
    [–]AllHailTheSwooshman 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
    Honestly, not offence here, but it seems like you have your own biases as much as the anti-milo camp does. I have baises as well, I'm human. But Antifa's actions aside, people reacting negatively to Milo's rhetoric isn't a suppression of his freedom of speech. It's two groups who both have the freedom to speak their minds. It's just clear that A LOT of people at Berkley aren't a fan of what he stands for. There's no legal obligation for the college to host Milo, and they'd be spending tuition money to do it.
    [–]Celda[S] 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
    But Antifa's actions aside, people reacting negatively to Milo's rhetoric isn't a suppression of his freedom of speech.
    Did you not read what I said? Riots and violence in order to shut down speech, is certainly a suppression of speech.
    There's no legal obligation for the college to host Milo
    No, but they do have a legal obligation to allow their students to host events. It was the college Republicans that created the event, not the university.
    They also have a legal obligation to prevent people from attacking others at their school.
    [–]AllHailTheSwooshman -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
    I don't know how to quote people on Reddit, but I'll try to respond best I can without having that format to lean on.
    I totally see what you're saying, and I guess my stance is somewhere in the middle. I don't think hitting people with signs and pepper spraying folks is really an effective or helpful method of protest. I also don't really buy into the "They're the REAL fascists" mentality either. Like if everything existed in a vacuum, and there was no context of current events, historical events, and we ignored the content Milo's message, then yes, violence and rioting in response to a conservative speaker is a suppressive act. Those people are in fact the real fascists.
    But it's not that simple. Milo is a person who justifies the degradation of already targeted groups. Most recently on Bill Mahr, he said women and gay people are worse workers, that gay and trans people are disordered, Leslie Jones is illiterate, ect. And that's on a major public outlet. That's on national TV. He's been known to encourage his college followers to seek out and report illegal immigrant students. To many people, his presence on campus is a threat to them, and can directly effect how their peers view/treat them. Obviously add all that to the current political climate, and you have a recipe for unrestricted rage. The idealistic view that every viewpoint should have seat at the table falls apart when it meets real life application and starts effecting actual people. When other hateful rhetorics in history came and went, and those ideas became shamed and taboo in their culture, was that the suppression of free speech? Or a response to hateful ideology? In respect to the school, they allowed the event to happen, and when it got out of hand, police were brought in. They completed their legal obligation, but regardless, your response was a tangent from the original point I was trying to make. That could be my fault for being unclear. I was trying to say that freedom of speech allows for the one to express their ideas without government suppression and persecution. It doesn't stop people from reacting negatively/angrily/violently to said speech. Sorry if this response came off pointed. I want to find a mid-ground those of your mindset. It's becoming more and more popular on r/Canada,
    [–]Celda[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Most recently on Bill Mahr, he said women and gay people are worse workers, that gay and trans people are disordered, Leslie Jones is illiterate, ect.
    He said that gay people are disordered in a perjorative sense? I find that hard to believe, as he is gay.
    Now, I agree these are very distasteful views. Still, they do not justify violence. I have no issue with protest or criticism against distasteful or offensive speech. I have no issue with actual hate speech or threats being punished by the law.
    But I do have a big issue with non-criminal speech being met with physical violence. Especially when the people literally being beaten unconscious in the streets are not the ones saying the things Milo has said.
    I was trying to say that freedom of speech allows for the one to express their ideas without government suppression and persecution. It doesn't stop people from reacting negatively/angrily/violently to said speech.
    So if you expressed some view about gay rights, or immigration, and I punched you in the face because I didn't like what you said, then I still uphold freedom of speech and have not violated yours?
    That seems absurd to me.
    Sorry if this response came off pointed. I want to find a mid-ground those of your mindset. It's becoming more and more popular on r/Canada,
    No worries, I did not find it pointed. But what mindset do you refer to exactly? I'm not sure what you mean.
    [–]kochevnikov -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
    Rex Murphy is a dumb fuck.
    [–]junius_maltbyOntario -8 points-7 points-6 points  (22 children)
    Is that what old Rex was on about? I never get too far into anything he writes before his hackish attempts at cleverness start to seriously trigger my gag reflex. If only he were more clever, sophisticated, well-coiffed, and mild-mannered like Milo (Rex's words, not mine).
    So, uh...where in Canada did these riots occur?
    [–]Celda[S] 10 points11 points12 points  (5 children)
    So, uh...where in Canada did these riots occur?
    They didn't occur in Canada. However, the issue that Rex is discussing - free speech and the desire to suppress it - is quite relevant to Canada, and indeed all western societies.
    [–]YEGtoPG 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    No you see, everything is fine. Nothing is suppressed, nobody will see or know it once it's delet...er, filtered anyways.
    [–]adequatehunch -3 points-2 points-1 points  (3 children)
    So you admit the article has nothing to do with Canada except that free speech is one of the conservative talking points, and you expect it to be allowed? No. That doesn't make it relevant. Get a post that talks about how it relates to Canada if you want to post it here. Otherwise keep your talking points out.
    [–]Celda[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
    So you admit the article has nothing to do with Canada except that free speech is one of the conservative talking points, and you expect it to be allowed?
    Other than the fact that one of our most prominent national papers thought it was relevant to Canadians, and that it was written by a well-known Canadian columnist, about an issue that Canadians clearly care about (considering the number of comments), it had no relation to Canada.
    Under your logic, any op-ed talking about any issue global in scope (e.g. democracy, the environment) would be unrelated to Canada.
    Although, given that you describe free speech as a "conservative talking point", it seems like you are willfully blind.
    [–]adequatehunch -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
    It is a conservative talking point. Do you see the other parties talking about it? Almost never, because we already have free speech. You just can't take it too far.
    And if the article talks about how it relates to Canada rather than just talking about something going on in the world then it is not relevant enough to post here.
    [–]zahlman 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    It is a conservative talking point. Do you see the other parties talking about it? Almost never, because we already have free speech.
    I have voted for the NDP both provincially and federally at every opportunity for the last 15 years.
    I will talk about this issue at every possible opportunity; and I consider everyone who refuses to do so to have betrayed common sense, decency, the moral high ground of the Left in general, and me personally.
    [–]Northern_Ontario 3 points4 points5 points  (14 children)
    where in Canada did these riots occur?
    Exactly. It was removed because it had nothing to do with Canada other than the author.
    [–]Celda[S] 7 points8 points9 points  (13 children)
    By that logic though, an op-ed in Globe and Mail discussing the merits of a potential PR voting system would have nothing to do with Canada (since such a system could be used in any country).
    However, if that op-ed then mused whether a specific party might benefit or be harmed by such a system, then it would suddenly be ok.
    But I don't agree with that, I think that the former op-ed would be quite relevant to this subreddit.
    [–]jsmooth7 -3 points-2 points-1 points  (12 children)
    By that logic though, an op-ed in Globe and Mail discussing the merits of a potential PR voting system would have nothing to do with Canada (since such a system could be used in any country).
    Except it is relevant because the Canadian government was considering that system up until last month. There is a clear connection.
    [–]Celda[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (8 children)
    Not at all. Canada was not considering any specific PR voting system.
    It seems like special pleading on your part.
    An op-ed of a global issue (not specifically related to Canada) is relevant to Canada, so long as you agree with it. But it's not relevant if you disagree.
    [–]jsmooth7 -1 points0 points1 point  (7 children)
    Not at all. Canada was not considering any specific PR voting system.
    The electoral reform committee specifically recommended some type of proportional voting system. (As opposed to say an alternate vote system for example.)
    An op-ed of a global issue (not specifically related to Canada) is relevant to Canada, so long as you agree with it. But it's not relevant if you disagree.
    No, it just has to be relevant. I would say the same thing if someone posted something about Obama's transgender bathroom guidelines, claiming this is relevant to Canada, even though I agree with them. Unless it's something actively being considered here, it's not relevant to /r/canada.
    [–]Celda[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (6 children)
    The electoral reform committee specifically recommended some type of proportional voting system.
    Some type, yes. But not any specific one. Therefore, a discussion of a hypothetical PR voting system would be unrelated to Canada.
    No, it just has to be relevant. I would say the same thing is someone posted something about say Obama transgender bathroom guidelines, claiming this is relevant to Canada, even though I agree with them.
    But that's not the same as what we are talking about here. The Obama guidelines are unrelated to Canada.
    On the other hand, if the CBC posted an op-ed about transgender bathroom policy in general and how it should work (not specific to any region, but in general) then that would be related to Canada.
    Unless it's something actively being considered here, it's not relevant to /r/canada.
    Again, by that logic, any op-ed whatsoever about any global issue would not be allowed, even if it was published in Canadian media by a Canadian author, about an issue important to Canadians. I don't think anyone wants that.
    Or, for that matter, any Canadian news article about a Canadian doing something outside Canada would also "not be relevant".
    [–]jsmooth7 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
    Some type, yes. But not any specific one. Therefore, a discussion of a hypothetical PR voting system would be unrelated to Canada.
    What? Why does it have to be one specific type of PR? I really don't follow your logic here, sorry.
    PR voting system is already a very specific topic. I think there are only 3 types of PR that have been considered in Canada total. (STV, MMP and rural-urban proportional)
    On the other hand, if the CBC posted an op-ed about transgender bathroom policy in general and how it should work (not specific to any region, but in general) then that would be related to Canada.
    I disagree. Just having a Canadian author doesn't make it relevant to Canada. If it explained Canada's policies in the article then it would be fine imo. (I'm not a mod of course so that's not my call to make)
    Again, by that logic, any op-ed whatsoever about any global issue would not be allowed, even if it was published in Canadian media by a Canadian author, about an issue important to Canadians. I don't think anyone wants that.
    Again, no. The PR system op-ed would still be allowed. Articles about value based screening for refugees would still be allowed (since that is what some Conservatives are proposing). An op-ed about "islamophobia" would be allowed because of M-103, doesn't even really matter what angle they take on it.
    Mainly, I don't want us to be flooded with articles about US politics like every other subreddit out there. There's plenty to talk about just with Canadian politics.
    [–]exploderatorBritish Columbia 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
    And the Canadian government is currently pushing for laws to curtail our free speech, claiming "hate speech", and even supporting that extremely contentious term "Islamophobia". Effectively our government is picking ideological sides with and supporting the excuses of those rioters in the Milo protest. Rex Murphy paid attention because that riot was hotly on topic for Canada, very precisely on topic, and the outcome was a core offense against our basic liberty. And you should note we're here under complaints of partisan censorship in a national forum, divided along the very same lines. This is r\Canada, not r\SocialJusticeCanada, but it seems the mods have a biased agenda, and that's a subject that Canada needs to deal with. There is a clear connection here in many minds.
    PS, I classically lean NDP (for moderate socialism), but I think the modern SJW movement went insane, and I root myself in freedom, which begins with freedom of thought, speech and expression.
    [–]jsmooth7 -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
    And the Canadian government is currently pushing for laws to curtail our free speech, claiming "hate speech", and even supporting that extremely contentious term "Islamophobia".
    Uhh no, they're not. M-103 was a non-binding motion condemning the type of hate that lead to the mosque shooting in Quebec. If you think the mosque shooting was bad (hopefully you do!), then you have nothing to worry about.
    Anyways that's still a bit of a stretch for a connection. "Free speech" is a very broad topic while PR voting system is quite specific.
    [–]exploderatorBritish Columbia 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Uhh no, they're not. M-103 was a non-binding motion condemning ...
    You are correct. And I understood the point. I said "is currently pushing for laws to curtail ...". I should have said "is currently pushing towards even more laws to curtail our free speech", which I do think is indicated by that memo. The point is, that memo sets the stage for what gets ADDED TO the big list of "hateful" things we're not allowed to talk about any more, because someone's feelings are more important than truth. Adding "Islamophobia" to that list is terrifying in the eyes of many Canadians, including a lot of Muslims who are not stuck in the seventh century, and who consider that word to have been carefully created and introduced on purpose as propaganda by fundamentalist political Islamists, in order to silence any criticism. Great video by a very insightful Canadian on the subject:
    [–]gynganinja 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Sophisticated, well-coifed, and mild-mannered like Milo the Pedophilo.
    [–][deleted]  (1 child)
    [deleted]
      [–]Celda[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      Why is it that mensrights and td users across Reddit always cry censorship? I'm sorry, but a post titled "ladies, check your privilege" is gonna get removed.
      That was the title of the Globe and Mail article, not a title by the poster.
      It also must be about something Canadian, not an issue that isn't specific to here. If the article is about how it relates to Canada then I would understand more. But by the posts you linked it's quite obvious what kind of user you are.
      Sorry, but you seem like one of the people in that thread who tried to disagree with Wente's article, but were unable to refute it and just used insults (calling her a plagiarist etc).
      [–]I-Seek-To-Understand 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      Can't trust mods. Ever.
      [–]BForBandanaBritish Columbia 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      To anyone posting or commenting on anything political, always sort by "controversial". The left among us will always downvote anything that isn't "the right way to think" and try to censor contrary opinions.
      [–]-oopsie-poopsie- -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      Honestly, in my opinion gender war drama comes up far too often in this subreddit and I appreciate mod-effort in giving us at least a few days break between threads.
      [–]xuxjafavi 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      I'm confused.. if it's deleted, then how is it still there?
      [–]Celda[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      The threads get removed from the front page, and from the search bar. You can only go to them if you have the direct link, which you wouldn't be able to find unless you already commented in it.
      [–]Sidewinder77 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      I've been on reddit for 11-years. In my experience, this kind of thing has been going on in /r/Canada for 11-years.
      You should have seen what it was like in the old days. It was really bad.
      [–]dontPM_me_anythingCanada 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      It's totally fascinating to watch people who hold diametrically opposed views join together in unison to attack the mods for political bias. Call me Canadian, but when I have a comment removed for "rabble-rousing", I say to myself, that's fair, and I move on.
      Keep up the good work Mod team, the silent majority appreciates your efforts, I'm sure.
      [–]lmac7 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      I share you view. Confirmation bias lives across the spectrum and people are loathe to recognize their own.
      [–][deleted]  (2 children)
      [deleted]
        [–]doctor_rockstar 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        It's easy, don't commit wrong-think and you'll be fine.
        [–]lmac7 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        While I understand that the issues of being consistent and transparent are reasonable to raise, I wonder how reasonable it is to expect mods to appear completely beyond reproach when making decisions about rule enforcement. While you haven't specifically stated the political bias you perceive, I assume you see a trend that does not reflect your particular values. Can we admit that most of us notice the examples that confirm our bias and give them more importance than other examples?
        The snapshot of examples you gave may highlight some perceived inconsistencies, but they are nothing close to a representative sample to substantiate your charge. You must acknowledge this if you are even remotely fair minded about the issue.
        I for one think that mods get way too much crap about this issue and we should be way more cautious about implying political motives where other occasional bias and errors can be explanation enough when one makes hundreds of quick decisions on issues.
        You show me any beauracratic structure thst is completely free of simple human error and bias and I will show you a system where no humans are involved.
        [–]Celda[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Can we admit that most of us notice the examples that confirm our bias and give them more importance than other examples?
        That's true, there certainly may be other threads wrongly being deleted that I do not notice, that do not fit under that political bias.
        Still, look at some other posts that were not removed, despite being unrelated to Canada:
        This is literally an image of someone filtering out the_donald subreddit.
        An image of a tweet from a former Canadian politician making a joke about an American politician.
        [–]GalcaryAlberta 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        To be honest, I wouldn't have removed the threads that were removed, as they have some relevance to Canada. If the comments got out of hand, I would have just locked the topic for 48 hours.
        [–]VoltrondemortOntario -4 points-3 points-2 points  (0 children)
        Because we don't need more bullshit identity politics about the evil campus protestors or gender war mra crap (especially by ms Wente)?
        [–]Avooters -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
        Reddit has a dominate Canadian user base, I think a lot of them come here to get away from all the political non-sense and constant shit flinging from the rest of the site, they don't want to be challenged or deal with it. The first article is unsubstantial and over a controversial matter, adds really nothing other then promoting a famous persons agenda, the second one from Wente is "those poor straight white males" propaganda that people are very tired of and only reason she is "well known" is because she is a known plagiarizer. Third is more propaganda against honest protesters to try and rile up hatred.
        Where the crap about Pizza is feel goody, people upset over shitflinging and an interesting tidbit people can use at the dinner table with their families.
        This is used mostly by college aged kids, they just want their safe zones away from all the bullshit that infects the rest of the site. Is it really that strange? Majority of r/country are like this. Mostly positive/non controversial things unless the issue is impossible to ignore.
        Its really only a problem if you only use Reddit as your source for news, which you definitely should not. Every subreddit is "compromised" in some form or another. Its the nature of authority. Believe me I'm not a fan of the basis either but when you're surrounded by millennial liberals who in a bubble its just how its just how things are, I don't mean that as an insult but we all have our own basis.
        That said anyone who posts pictures of Tim Hortons should be banned on sight. Its such obvious advertisement its ridiculous.
        [–]AccidentalAlien -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
        I surfed past this post about an hour ago without giving it a second thought until about 3 minutes ago when I received a notice from the mods that a comment I posted was 'removed for Posts generally lacking any content or of low content will be removed.
        My comment, whether you agree with it or not, suggested very simply that the comment I was replying to should be "further up" ... and THAT isn't contributing to the conversation????

        WHAT.IN.THE.BLOODY.FUCK.MODS???

        [–]AccidentalAlien 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Well, that's it for me - I have officially been accused of "rabble rousing" because I very simply suggested that this comment should be "further up".
        Goodbye /r/Canada. I'll miss you Lucky - You're one of the good ones.
        [–]jsmooth7 -2 points-1 points0 points  (9 children)
        It's always going to be a bit subjective where the line should be drawn about what is "relevant to Canada" but I think the mods made the right call here.
        The stories you said are irrelevant to Canada all have a pretty distinctly Canadian feel to me. The pizza story specifically talks about the early pizza scene in Canada, it was interesting. And the "libtard" post is specifically about political language in Canada.
        The removed stories had very minimal connection to Canada. One of them was entirely about US politics! It doesn't seem outrageous that they were removed.
        [–]Celda[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (8 children)
        And the "libtard" post is specifically about political language in Canada.
        A self-post about people using words like libtard = related to Canada.
        A Canadian news article about a famous Canadian doing something newsworthy = not related to Canada.
        Ok.
        [–]jsmooth7 0 points1 point2 points  (7 children)
        The title of the post was
        It really saddens me when I see political polarity and terminology that is used in the US start creeping it's way into Canada. Anyone else starting to feel this way?
        and they used "libtard" as one example. That sounds like a post about Canada to me.
        [–]Celda[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (6 children)
        Complaining about political terms that are not specific to Canada is tangentially related to Canada, at best.
        Certainly it's no more related as a Globe and Mail op-ed talking about gender issues and specifically referencing Canadian statistics.
        [–]jsmooth7 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
        It's not complaining about the terms themselves, it's complaining that they are being used in Canada more. You are purposely missing the point.
        Anyways obviously we aren't going to change each other's view on this. It's subjective and we just have different perspectives.
        [–]Celda[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
        Some things are subjective, but others are not.
        We have an op-ed in the Globe and Mail discussing the idea that men are not privileged relative to women, and that women are relatively well off. It cites specific Canadian statistics when making the argument, although the argument is not specific to Canada and also applies to some other Western societies.
        Objectively, this is a general issue that is not specific to Canada.
        We have a self-post complaining about certain political terms being used in Canada, although the terms did not originate in Canada and are used in other countries.
        Objectively, this is a general issue that is not specific to Canada.
        And yet you are trying to tell me that the former is unrelated to Canada, while the latter is.
        That is not subjective, that is objectively incorrect.
        [–]jsmooth7 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
        I'll just repeat myself:
        Anyways obviously we aren't going to change each other's view on this.
        I think that still stands, and I'm tired of arguing this topic.
        [–]Celda[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
        Isn't that admitting you can't support your argument though?
        I'm sincerely curious as to how, given what I just described, you can claim the "libtards" self-post is related to Canada, while the Wente op-ed is not.
        [–]jsmooth7 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        No, it's admitting it's not worth the time and effort. These discussions can go forever, sometimes it's best to just cut your loses and agree to disagree.
        But since you are curious, ctrl+f "Canada" in the two posts you talked about: one gives 0 results and one gives 2. They are not objectively the same thing. They are both general issues sure but one is specifically in terms of Canada.
        [–]Celda[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        But since you are curious, ctrl+f "Canada" in the two posts you talked about: one gives 0 results and one gives 2. They are not objectively the same thing. They are both general issues sure but one is specifically in terms of Canada.
        It uses the word Canadian explicitly:
        Women make up at least 50 per cent of Canadian law school graduates, and outnumber men at most medical schools.
        And I'll count all the times where it cited Canadian statistics without using the word Canada or Canadian:
        The vast majority of workplace fatalities are male. So are the vast majority of workers in policing, firefighting, war and other lethal professions.
        Embedded link that cites Canadian statistics on workplace death.
        As for violence, men are the chief victims. Men make up three-quarters of all murder victims, and are far more likely to be the targets of more serious forms of assault.
        Embedded link for Canadian stats.
        Meanwhile, women are outperforming men at all levels of education, from kindergarten to graduate school. Women make up at least 50 per cent of Canadian law school graduates, and outnumber men at most medical schools.
        Embedded link for Canadian stats for law schools and medical schools.
        Surely you're not implying that if one talks about workplace fatalities, linking Canadian statistics, it is not related to Canada if the word Canada is not mentioned?
        [–]TOMapleLaughs -13 points-12 points-11 points  (2 children)
        Just a reminder on how quickly after that staged riot, Milo fizzled out. Within three weeks.
        [–]Celda[S] 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
        A staged riot, are you serious?
        So you think Milo paid (or just asked) hundreds of people to riot on his behalf? Hoping that not one would expose him?
        And then, what about the people writing into the UC Berekely student newspaper supporting the riots or even stating they participated?
        Were they also paid by Milo?
        [–]gynganinja -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
        Good old Milo the Pedophilo.
        Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2017 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
        REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
        π Rendered by PID 30386 on app-750 at 2017-02-26 17:56:56.642931+00:00 running 2811aac country code: NL.
        Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
        0%
         
        10%
         
        20%
         
        30%
         
        40%
         
        50%
         
        60%
         
        70%
         
        80%
         
        90%
         
        100%