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
326 points (80% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

canada

subscribeunsubscribe246,861 Canadians readers
1,493 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]medymLest We Forget[M] 78 points79 points80 points  (22 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.
[–]Celda[S] 30 points31 points32 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 2 points3 points4 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] 1 point2 points3 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 2 points3 points4 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 -1 points0 points1 point  (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] 12 points13 points14 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] 4 points5 points6 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 1 point2 points3 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 0 points1 point2 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.
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 28189 on app-46 at 2017-02-26 18:04:44.657288+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%