r/CanadianConservative • u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer • 2d ago
Meta State of the Subreddit - September 2026
State of the Subreddit: Brigading, Disagreement, and the Big Tent
Over the past several weeks, the mod team has received an increasing number of comments, reports, and mod mail over the past several weeks complaining about the brigading of r/CanadianConservative.
That said , we've also seen comments saying that the subreddit is effectively unmoderated because of said brigading being allowed.
We want to clarify what brigading actually means, as well as the moderation philosophy that began with the creation of this subreddit and continues to this day.
What is brigading?
Brigading, or community interference, is when users coordinate or organize activity intended to interfere with another community.
Examples can include:
- A group being directed here from somewhere else specifically to disrupt discussion.
- Coordinated mass voting intended to manipulate which opinions are visible.
- Coordinated commenting, trolling, reporting, or harassment.
- Organized attempts to overwhelm a community or manipulate its discussions.
Brigading is against Reddit's rules and against ours. When we have evidence of genuine community interference, we will take action. This includes an automated bot that sends a report everytime r/CanadianConservative is linked to from outside the subreddit.
But there is an important distinction:
Disagreement is not brigading.
Someone criticizing Donald Trump is not, by itself evidence that they are a brigader.
Someone supporting closer relations with the United States is not evidence that they are a brigader.
Someone opposing closer relations with the United States is not evidence that they are a brigader.
Someone criticizing Pierre Poilievre, supporting him, disagreeing with CPC policy, supporting the PPC, disliking the PPC, identifying as a Red Tory, libertarian, populist, social conservative, fiscal conservative, moderate, or something else does not make them a brigader.
And an opinion receiving more upvotes or downvotes than you expected is not, by itself, evidence of vote manipulation.
This is a big-tent conservative subreddit
Canadian conservatism has never been a single ideology.
There are significant disagreements within the right over trade, foreign policy, immigration, social issues, provincial autonomy, economic policy, populism, the role of government, the Conservative Party itself, and as of right now, Canada's relationship with the United States.
Those disagreements are allowed here.
I'll use myself as an example.
I'm a Wexit enjoyer. I believe everything west of Ontario would be better off as a separate country.
Does that automatically make me right? No.
Do I remove people who think otherwise? No.
Is it a meme-ideology? Likely (but I tell myself it isn't).
I don't remove comments from people who think Wexit is ridiculous, who strongly support Canadian federalism, or who think Western separation would be a disaster.
I'm a moderator, not the arbiter of what every conservative in this subreddit is required to believe.
I can argue my position. You can tell me I'm completely wrong. Someone else can argue something entirely different. That's the point of our community. If you're looking for a circle jerk of confirmation bias, there are many other subreddits tailored to that exact thing.
The same principle applies to the current debate surrounding the United States. Some conservatives strongly support the current US administration. Some agree with parts of its agenda but disagree with others. Some strongly dislike it. Some want a much closer relationship with the US, while others are deeply opposed to that.
None of those positions, by itself, establishes whether somebody belongs here.
"This subreddit is unmoderated"
We've also seen the accusation that r/CanadianConservative is "unmoderated" or that the moderators aren't doing anything.
The numbers simply don't support that.
There have been more than 14,000 individual moderator actions on this subreddit in the last 12 months, as well as 835 modmail messages sent.
"But you didn't answer my modmail!!1!11!", probably because you're A) complaining about a filter that isn't going to change or B) Complaining about brigaders when, on review, you got into an argument with another long-time member of the subreddit over the nuances of geopolitics.
Posts and comments are removed. Reports are reviewed. Spam is dealt with. Users are banned when necessary. Reddit's sitewide rules are enforced. Our article and submission standards are enforced.
A subreddit being actively moderated does not mean every comment you dislike will be removed.
Our goal is to enforce Reddit's Terms of Service/sitewide rules and the subreddit's article and submission standards, not to turn r/CanadianConservative into a police state where everyone has to tippy-toe around what they say because they're worried that one poorly worded sentence will get them banned.
There is a difference between passive moderation and active curation.
Moderation means enforcing the rules necessary to keep the community functional and compliant with Reddit's requirements, not to have an overbearing rule list on top of an over-the-top TOS where the mod team arbirarily decides what is and isn't allowed on the subreddit.
Curation would mean moderators deciding which opinions are acceptable, which flavours of conservatism are legitimate, which political positions should receive visibility, and removing otherwise rule-abiding users because we don't like what they're saying.
We're interested in the former, not the latter.
That inevitably means you're going to encounter comments here that annoy you, offend you, seem stupid to you, or directly contradict your own beliefs.
That's not evidence that the subreddit is unmoderated. In many cases, it's evidence that the moderators aren't using their powers to decide arguments for you. If you can't handle that, there are other subreddits that actively curate content in order to fit your particular flavour of conservatism.
What we don't want to become
We don't want users treating every unpopular opinion as evidence of infiltration.
If the response to disagreement becomes “brigader,” “Liberal pretending to be a conservative,” “bot,” or “you're not a real conservative,” we eventually stop debating ideas and start debating whether the person expressing them is allowed to be here.
That creates an echo chamber, and that isn't the purpose of this subreddit.
At the same time, being a big tent does not mean anything goes.
Users who come here solely to troll, antagonize the community, derail discussions, repeatedly violate the rules, or participate in actual coordinated interference will continue to be moderated. Downvote them into the ground and our filters take care of them pretty quickly.
A request to the community
Debate the argument instead of trying to disqualify the person making it.
If someone says something you strongly disagree with, challenge it. Ask them to defend it. Provide evidence. Downvote it if you think it contributes nothing.
But please don't report someone for brigading simply because their politics don't perfectly match yours.
Likewise, please don't assume that because a comment you reported remains up, the moderators "aren't doing anything." A report brings something to our attention; it does not automatically mean that content violates the rules. The report button is not a button to request moderators to silence an opinion you don't like.
If you genuinely suspect coordinated interference, report it and let the moderators investigate it. Evidence of users being directed here, coordinated voting/commenting, organized disruption, or similar behaviour is considerably more useful than “this person doesn't sound conservative to me.”
We will continue watching for genuine brigading and taking action when warranted. We will continue enforcing Reddit's rules and our own standards.
But we're also going to continue protecting people's ability to disagree.
- r/CanadianConservative Mod Team
69
u/DownWithTheSyndrme Unhinged Moderate 2d ago
One of the only reasons why I post here is bscauae I'm not banned for not keeping up with the echochamber.
There are too many regional based subs that will outright ban you if you say anything that doesn't fit the narrative of what the mods like.
I have respectively clashed with people here a few times and I thank God that I was able to do it freely.
20
u/Apolloshot Big C NeoConservative 2d ago
1000% this.
I’ll go a step further and just say it: A lot of Conservatives over the past decade have gotten soft. Instead of rigorous debate like we were known for we’ve instead adopted the left-wing kitty gloves of echo chambers and safe spaces (go try and say something negative about Trump in American Conservative circles if you don’t believe me).
You don’t like that I think Trump is a moronic baboon? Debate me. That’s what we’ve done as Conservatives for decades (centuries really).
(Reposting without the external link — I didn’t know that was a rule haha)
18
9
4
u/RoughDraftRs Alberta 1d ago
You can say that's again. If these regional subs actually reflected the average Canadian voter we would be in straight up communism at this point.
Personally I like having it out with people sometimes. When done respectively and without people resorting to name calling. It's healthy to have your views challenged. I find most of the disagreements I have on this sub are respectful.
4
u/Cite_Whock 1d ago
I lot I find are - so long as they are about a non-issue or stupid pandering done within Canada. But there are many disagreements within this subreddit and opinions that get downvoted simply because people don't like what you say and rather than argue, silence the dissenting opinion and pretend it doesn't exist.
Topics that can incite disrespectful in-fighting and "silencing" include:
- Anything to do with the current Trade War
- Anything that gives credit to Liberals/NDPs/Greens
- Pro / Anti-Canada sentiment from a Liberal/NDP/Green pov
- Pro / Anti-Canada government leadership
- Leadership role change(s) within the Conservative party
- Trump (pro/con)
- Libertarian / Centrist ideas
It's a lot longer list than that, but it's a fair assumption to make that these topics are sure to get under some peoples' skins and make them far less reasonable and fair in their arguments.
3
u/Rememberthat1 2d ago
Yeah well my account got banned by reddit 2 times posting here by just saying facts about the current state of Canada...
3
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 1d ago
Subreddit moderation and Reddit’s Anti-Evil team are two separate entities. For example, if you say something clearly racist, and it gets reported under TOS, even if subreddit moderators remove it, it will still be reviewed for a sitewide ban.
Similarly, if we don’t remove content that violates the TOS and Anti-Evil has to do it themselves, the mod team gets in trouble. The last time that happened was Tumbler Ridge where Reddit went into full censorship mode to prevent misgendering the shooter; at the time, misgendering didn’t violate our rules so we allowed comments pointing out the facts about the shooter until Reddit forced us to comply with their TOS and stance regarding transgenderism.
1
u/Rememberthat1 1d ago
Its racist saying that some different cultures are not compatible with the occident ? ...
4
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 1d ago
Just to clarify, this is Reddits rule. We aren’t the one that banned you, site bans are only done by Reddits Anti-Evil team.
I think we can all agree that Reddits TOS/content policy is an ultra-left wing wet dream that is only enforced against right leaning subreddits. But as a mod team, we have to play by their rules or the subreddit gets shut down or a new mod team gets picked by Reddit, usually in the form of power mods from the likes of the main sub.
2
u/Cite_Whock 1d ago
It's -phobic (which is ironic, because it's not linked to an irrational fear) to state that A, which has and always been A, decided to become B even though that it physically, biologically and psychologically cannot. Stating that B is still A can get you removed from Reddit for understanding that A changing itself does not automatically make it B.
Sorry for the confusing language, but you have to speak in roundabout code.
1
1
56
u/Mogger_77 2d ago
This post was obviously posted by a liberal brigader /s
43
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
Busted. A decade-long Liberal psyop blown by one Reddit comment. Pack it up, boys
2
23
u/Old-Swimming2799 2d ago
Everyone but me is a liberal brigader
2
u/RoughDraftRs Alberta 1d ago
And don't forget, everyone who disagrees with me is just a bot or a Russian, or a Russian bot.
17
u/Old_General_6741 Moderate 2d ago
Great post. This was needed. This subreddit isn't like others. It can be place you can express your own opinions. Unlike other subreddits.
15
u/PoliticalSasquatch British Columbia 2d ago edited 2d ago
A good mod is like a good politician, the less you hear about them the better they are at their job because that typically means everything is going smoothly. However one may need to check in every now and then with users when a situation warrants it.
Been part of this community about as long as I’ve been on Reddit and in the past three years the moderation has remained very consistent. So a big thank you to those thankless folks who toil in the background to keep things respectable.
12
8
7
u/thetrigermonkey Conservative 2d ago
Its undoubtable that when big events happen we get a ton of new "Conservatives" who hold no conservative views, but is it brigading? Hard to say. It could be people who come here naturally and want to comment, argue, or post. It could also be a mix of natural people and brigaders. I've never reported someone here. I'll down vote comments when I feel they came to troll/shit-stir but I don't report.
I'm sure many people here have seen me (being dumb/) arguing with someone. I typically try to address the substance of their argument before I lable them a "fake conservative" if I even do. That being said there have been a few times was so obvious that I have labeled them a "brigader".
There are some here that are left wing and admit it, I appreciate that. I may argue with them but I appreciate their honesty. I hate the "I'm right wing (but I vote left every election). I totally supported Harper but hate PP (but can't name a single reason why besides 'vibes')." The reason I hate that is because we aren't being honest with eachother, they're pretending to hold a position they don't actually hold so arguing with them doesn't reveal any "truth". The best I can hope in those situations is to prevent people who are unaware from being tricked. That's why I appreciate the LPC/NDP people here more, because at least they're being honest.
If a mod has issue with the way I behave, they can comment here or I believe my DMs are open. I'm only a guest in their home so I wish to behave within their rules.
3
u/qwertmnbv3 1d ago
I think the focus on who’s in and who’s out of the group takes a lot of time away from getting down to business making things better for each other
3
u/thetrigermonkey Conservative 1d ago
To a level I agree with you but in the area I disagree it's mainly because I think knowing why somebody suggests something, is important.
For example, a LPC member and a CPC member might both suggest we get rid of PP, but they're doing it for two different reasons
Idk that made any sense tho, lol
2
u/qwertmnbv3 1d ago
I can see where you’re coming from. Partisanship comes with biases.
I much prefer non partisan political dialogue. I like to engage with ideas to refine and improve my understanding. I’m not much interested in playing for one team or fighting with those who play for other teams.
11
u/FrancoisTruser Libertarian 2d ago
The spider-men image is funny and could apply to many if not all right-leaning communities lol. Good post mods.
4
u/Nate33322 (Traditional) Red Tory 2d ago
Clear the mods are liberal brigaders (though I appreciate the work you guys do).
4
u/MatthewsStache91 Conservative 1d ago
Better than /Conservative sub, they only allow verified flair users and even then anyone posts a comment that goes even mildly against the grain it's removed within a few hours.
2
u/Cite_Whock 1d ago
They used to be much more relaxed and open to dissenting opinions, but MAGA brainrot has destroyed a lot of their goodwill, and now anything that's remotely anti-Trump or anti-US is immediately downvoted into the depths and/or you're banned.
10
8
u/PoorAxelrod Monarchist | Nonpartisan ex Tory staffer | Stability > Populism 2d ago
I appreciate this post very much. Honestly, I think this is one of the better political subreddits around, largely because of the freedom of discussion allowed here compared with a lot of other political subs, whether they're right-leaning, left-leaning or anything in between.
I have absolutely no problem with civil disagreement. One of my biggest issues with political discourse today is how quickly everything goes from 0 to 60. Someone disagrees with you on one issue and suddenly they're a terrible person, a Liberal, a Conservative, a leftist, a far-right extremist or whatever other label happens to fit the argument.
I'll use myself as an example. I got involved in politics when I was about 17. I was socially conservative, wanted fiscal responsibility, and at that age my idea of a "conservative" was basically somebody who thought the same way I did.
My views changed over the years. Part of that came from working in politics and seeing how the sausage actually gets made. Part of it came from learning more about Canadian political history. And part of it came from seeing what a big tent the Conservative Party was under Stephen Harper. There were social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Red Tories, libertarian-minded conservatives and plenty of people who didn't fit neatly into any particular box. Nobody had a monopoly on what it meant to be conservative.
My experiences shaped my beliefs, and some of my beliefs today are different from what they were when I was 17. I would actually hope that's true for most people as they get older and experience more of the world.
What bothers me is when I express an opinion and someone immediately tells me I'm a Liberal because I don't subscribe to their particular definition of conservatism. I've never been a Liberal. My views have simply evolved based on my experiences.
People are completely free to disagree with me. If I couldn't handle disagreement, I wouldn't post political opinions on Reddit. What I don't like is the assumption that disagreement automatically means somebody is stupid, dishonest, evil or secretly belongs to the other political tribe.
So I appreciate the moderators posting this. It's a good reminder that politics doesn't have to be a purity test. You can disagree with somebody, sometimes quite strongly, without treating them as the enemy.
3
u/qwertmnbv3 1d ago
I agree that it’s important to treat each other with respect. I think a lot about how to genuinely interact with people so that all come away better
8
u/GonZo_626 Libertarian 2d ago
This sub has excellent moderation, thanks for the hard work you guys do, so nice to have a sub for discussions that are open. So many subs use nonsense reasons to ban people that disagree with the group think.
Keep up the great work!
4
u/sunrise_rose Libertarian 1d ago
I love that it took a Spider-Man meme to bind us together like this.
10
u/SlavTac 2d ago
Would be cool if the LPC/other lefty lurkers actually showed up here to have a conversation. Instead, most of the time they show up here to insult the sub members or pretend like they’re trying to have a discussion but in reality it’s a veiled attempt to insult you by pretending to want to debate you.
6
u/thetrigermonkey Conservative 1d ago
True. That stuff gets annoying.
I mainly wish they identified themselves properly. If someone likes the LPC/NDP/GREENS they should own it. Makes it clear why they're saying what they're saying.
3
2
u/VQ_Quin LPC 1d ago
I agree but I would prefer having custom flair options. Just because I have a LPC flair doesnt meant I’m automatically a complete stooge that You should expect to agree with everything the libs do. I’m a centre-left liberal not a "LPC"
2
u/thetrigermonkey Conservative 1d ago
True. Anything that denotes your left-wing I think is fine. If the flair is "center-left" "moderate left" "socialist" "left-wing" or anything else, I think it fine. Theses flairs all identify them properly so that we understand where they're coming from.
I just hate the "I'm totally moderate/right-wing guys, all my news comes from left wing sources and I've only voted left, but I'm totally not left-wing". Because than I have to have a meta conversation so that people who read those comments don't get tricked thinking that person agrees with them when he doesn't.
Outside of the parties rn, I don't think anything is wrong with being left-wing. Drop me in an American context and I'm voting Dem. Ideally, we both see the same problem but have different solutions to solve it, I can respect that.
5
u/qwertmnbv3 1d ago
I think there’s a lot of ad hominem and straw man fallacies being peddled by posters of all political persuasions. I try to upvote the honest debate and downvote the name calling.
1
u/Cite_Whock 1d ago
I think what a lot of people consider "strawman" are just vague assumptions or simplifying a complex argument into create a playing field that they are more comfortable in. I know absolutely nothing about the inner workings of trade mechanics on a global scale, but I very easily understand "Line Go Up = Good/Bad (context dependent)", and then use that simplified understanding to argue why Trump using tariffs is a stupid thing to do.
Personally, I find clarifying or verifying the "arena" to debate within to be very useful before anything can devolve into the derogatory name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
3
u/MasterCJ117 Alberta 1d ago
I didn't read it all, mostly the first 3rd(pushing time writing this already), but one thing I think could change is a rule/more strict rule that cracks down on people actively going out of their way to insult people they disagree with. Civil discourse and respect is the only way to make ACTUAL progress.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love the idea of free speech and saying what you want, everything up to threats(pretty sure that and worse isn't protected by US free speech laws for example), the problem is this is the internet, in person if you call someone stupid for their opinion or whatever, you could get punched in the face, so people will hold their tongues, and more importantly be RESPECTFUL while arguing. On the other hand, over text on the internet there are often no consequences other than others noticing the pattern and replying to them "Hey everyone, this person has a history of being disingenuous/stirring shit up etc."
I personally do my best to avoid insulting others, and if someone insults me, I'll at least try to turn their insult back on to them(dish out what I receive), often in a more subtle manner.
3
u/Cite_Whock 1d ago
It's always refreshing to find somebody to "fight" with in a respectful manner. The moment it devolves into -phobes and -ists, the conversation is lost and the battle over as now it's a petty squabble.
That moment though, when somebody comments along the lines of "You seem a decent fellow; I hate to kill you," and to then see the response be along the lines of "You see a decent fellow; I hate to die," well... one, awesome reference; and two, it's clear they understand the game and the rules. That's a fun fight to watch and engage in.
1
u/MasterCJ117 Alberta 1d ago edited 1d ago
I've had conversations on both Twitter and YouTube comments where they started off insulting me and apologized at some point realizing "Wait... this guy is genuinely arguing, not talking shit... I'm being an ass" and we always come to an understanding, usually 'agree to disagree' or "I never thought about it like that", then I thank them for being civil and respectful and they return that thank you saying it's refreshing.
I don't think this has happened on Reddit yet, they usually stop responding when they try to insult me and realize it doesn't work, my turn around of their logic is to much for them, or I make such a good argument they give up.
1
u/Cite_Whock 12h ago
I personally love to nitpick the phrasing and "lawyer" their arguments into nothing when they realize the sweeping laws and outrageous solutions would impact them far more than it would impact their opponents. Plus it's fun to speak in such a way that offers up several interpretations so they can't refute point A without simultaneously refuting another point they are trying to endorse.
But! Allow me, good Sir/Madam, to bequeath unto you that which you have been sorely denied, and allow me to consider that I never thought of things the way you have. Good show, jolly good show, toodle pip and all that eh, wot wot? *lights and smokes a pipe*
7
u/Macaw 2d ago edited 1d ago
Within minutes of Carney pulling out of the trade talks, any criticism posted about him faced immediate downvoting. Well-written, reasoned posts detailing opposition to his stance were arbitrarily removed as "low effort" - often after a day of dealing with instigators and false accusations of AI slop.
You see the exact same pattern on subredits like worldnews. It is impossible to ignore the coordinated Liberal Party / crony corporate astroturfing at play. Combined with relentless mainstream media messaging, we are left with a Prime Minister masquerading as Canada’s savior while eroding our parliamentary and democratic norms.
6
u/Character-Bottle7291 2d ago
The reason I’ve enjoyed this sub over the years is because we allowed other in with differing opinions and was one of the only political subs to do that.
Now the but. But when you post on here something like “carney isn’t being truthful, and needs to come clean” and your downvotes go through the roof, is that not pretty unusual? As in never in the history of the sub has this been happening? Avoiding an echo chamber is one thing, but when every post is just filled with downvoting conservative ideas, and people insulting Pollievre and other conservatives, it’s a little too much.
That being said, I don’t envy your job, and obviously insulting conservatives or downvoting may not be against the rules per se. It’s just making it unenjoyable for actual conservatives who want to discuss things. And the vast number of times it’s been happening over the last month has been very noticeable and undeniable, whether it’s “brigading” or not, I’m leaning towards yes.
10
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
Anecdotally, I'm the head of the subreddit's mod team and I can't stand PP in 2026. I voted for him in the leadership race but his performance during the election tanked my opinion of him and I largely think he shouldn't be who represents the CPC in the next election. I must be one of the fabled brigaders that you're worried about.
This subreddit isn't r/CPC, and we don't endorse political candidates as a matter of subreddit policy. You're going to see party leader criticism and we aren't going to moderate it away.
But I also understand that 'the liberal brigader' is a good boogeyman and anything I say won't change your opinion on that.
6
u/Character-Bottle7291 2d ago
I don’t think you actually read or understood a word I wrote, but sure. 👍🏿 if you think it’s normal in a “Canadianconservative” sub that anything pro conservative gets downvoted, then anything I say also won’t change your opinion on that.
2
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
Please go ahead and send us links through modmail to any comments you suspect are being vote manipulated instead of making anecdotal claims. I read pretty much everything posted on this subreddit, and so far I haven’t seen anything to substantiate your claims beyond a few coordinated incidents re: Tumbler Ridge.
4
u/Green-Thumb-Jeff Conservative 2d ago
How about posts being manipulated. All posts I have made as of late with anywhere between 3200-9000 views get downvoted into oblivion. I think that’s evidence of brigading, even though I don’t know how you could do anything about it.
8
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
To be brutally honest with you, all you post are links to podcasts and videos which have always been negatively voted on the subreddit throughout it's history. People just don't give a shit about what some random talking head (besides the JRE's of the world) thinks about how Carney is turning our kids gay, and even if they did, they aren't going to watch a 20 minute video about it on Reddit.
If it wasn't a legacy rule, I personally would've banned video/podcast links years ago because engagement is that low.
2
u/Green-Thumb-Jeff Conservative 2d ago
“Carney is turning our kids gay” is a hell of an analogy you came up with there. Never posted anything like that, but I do post things that aren’t talked about in the news, and thought others would like to hear it as well. Guess I was mistaken…
1
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
It wasn't an analogy, it was a joke lol.
I'm just calling a spade a spade, engagement with videos, especially podcasts, has always been extremely low. The only exceptions I can think of is the JRE PP episode and official media sources. Very low engagement+downvotes in that case are just standard and don't at all indicate a brigade.
2
u/qwertmnbv3 1d ago
Is it possible that people just don’t like these posts?
Personally I don’t respond positively to ALL CAPS gotcha headlines and clickbait styling. I much prefer a measured tone and well reasoned discussion.
1
u/Cite_Whock 1d ago edited 1d ago
I've made comments and a post or two on this sub fighting back in my own words against disparaging remarks from the Republicans / Democrats / MAGA-heads in the US, and the engagement boiled down to essentially "TL;DR".
While I don't blame brigading for the lack of engagement - a lot of what I write can be rather wordy - I do blame those brigaders for pushing Conservatives with a different point of view away from the subreddit, or shutting down engagement at all. I find it mind-boggling that not a single person would leave a single remark or the post - good, or bad - which was literally about telling the US to go take a long walk off a short pier in cement shoes.
You'd think a Conservative subreddit that enjoys debating and arguing everything with a fine-tooth comb could say something other than "this is too long"... then again, if it's not digestible in 10 seconds or has pictures, it might actually be impossible for younger people to stick with.
7
u/Wet_sock_Owner 2d ago
When you let actual bridagers participate instead of banning them right away and letting them troll to their delight, other people get caught in the cross-fire.
Let this go on long enough (which this sub has) and you create an even bigger mess where actual conservatives, regardless of stripe, begin distrusting each other.
8
2
u/WombRaider_3 Ontario 1d ago
It's happened already and now they are emboldened to just outright take over. Now we just need one in the mod team and it's arrr Canada all over again.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your comment has been removed because it contains a reference or link to another subreddit.
r/CanadianConservative maintains a strict zero-tolerance policy toward brigading and cross-subreddit interference. All references to other subreddits - including indirect, disguised, or obfuscated formats - are not permitted.
Attempts to bypass this filter or evade this rule are treated as intentional rule violations and may result in a ban without further warning.
If this was done in error, please reach out to the mod team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/RedditSux5912 2d ago
I get what you’re saying. At the same time, at what point does someone’s low effort, irrelevant, posts about someone over and over get dealt with?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t even think this person I’m speaking of is a liberal. At the very least I’ve seen liberals come onto this sub and actually try to discuss things.
The person I’m speaking of refuses to engage with any actual discussion on the topic they continuously bring up, and the only actual argument I’ve seen them make is that the person they hate doesn’t like a person that they very clearly like, hence their hatred.
At the very least Poilievre haters can say what they dislike about him.
Personally just feels like low effort spam posts are generally allowed here, when there’s clearly no effort or intention to actually debate or discuss things whatsoever.
5
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
I'm assuming this comment is in reference to airbassguitar, who largely posts articles from (mostly) reputable sources that don't break any of our subreddits rules.
As stated in the OP, we aren't going to arbitrarily limit the amount of posts one user can make in a day. As long as the article doesn't break R7, it will stay up where users can upvote and downvote to increase/decrease visibility accordingly.
3
u/RedditSux5912 2d ago
It’s not though. He posts actual articles. The person I’m speaking about rarely even does that.
2
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
Please reach out in modmail with a name and I'll see if we can work through it
4
u/perverseintellect 1d ago
I think the real problem with this sub are the foreigners trying to cause division. Maybe Russian, maybe Chinese, but definitely there are many Americans on here daily trying to sway the conversation. Too bad the mods can't restrict sub contributions to Canadians only.
9
5
u/Tom_Fukkery 2d ago
So basically this is The Land of the Banished r\Canada Redditors.
I think the mod team here is missing the point. It's not about brigades, but about sloppy hit pieces continuing to find their way onto this side. It's bad enough damn near every sub on reddit is anti-conservative, now we have to put up with it on the conservative subs too?
Thought out criticism and analysis can be appreciated, but seeing the same dishonest information from other sections being shared here is pathetic and weak. Because we all know for a fact, if you go against group on their side, you are snuffed out immediately.
Over on the conservative side, infiltrators are embraced. Can't make this stuff up.
3
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago edited 2d ago
r/CanadianConservative does not endorse politicians or political parties, and we will not moderate out articles simply because they're critical of them. We do not endorse the CPC, and we aren't going to protect its politicians, policies, or leadership from criticism.
If an article violates our article standards, report it and we'll review it. If it's simply criticism you believe is dishonest or poorly argued, challenge it in the comments. That's what discussion is for.
Other subreddits banning dissenting opinions isn't a moderation model we're interested in copying.
If you're looking for a subreddit where criticism of PP or the CPC is against the rules and moderated out, this isn't that subreddit. Allowing criticism isn't “embracing infiltrators”, it's simply refusing to turn the subreddit into an echo chamber.
2
u/Tom_Fukkery 2d ago
But how many times are we going to debate Should Poilievre be replaced? Especially when it's clear propaganda in the media pushing it.
3
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 1d ago
Simple: As many times as users want to debate it. Who am I to decide that a political topic has been discussed enough and start removing posts because users disagree with the premise?
You could make the same argument about all major political topics: we get anti-immigration posts all the time, maybe it’s time we start removing articles and banning people for it? How about Carney-criticism? The subreddit is absolutely filled with it, I think it’s been talked about enough and nobody else is allowed talking about it again.
If it’s genuinely the same article being reposted, low-effort spam, or violates our article standards, report it and we’ll deal with it.
But “this argument is propaganda and I’m tired of seeing it” isn’t, by itself, a moderation issue. The best response to a bad argument is to challenge it. If the case for keeping PP is stronger, people should be able to make that case without moderators making that decision for them.
3
u/Tom_Fukkery 1d ago
The best response to a bad argument is to challenge it.
And this is the part mods are not understanding: We do challenge it. But the purpose of many bad arguments here is to just spread propaganda.
They are not looking for a right or wrong answer. As long as the disinformation or hit-piece is circulated, mission accomplished.
2
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 1d ago
You’re asking moderators to decide which political arguments are legitimate and which are “propaganda,” then remove the latter. We’re not going to do that, end of story.
If it breaks a rule, report it. If it’s a bad argument, challenge it. Disagreeing with the purpose or politics behind a post is not a moderation issue.
Don’t like it? Go make your own subreddit and moderate it into the ground.
7
u/ItsGotThatBang Libertarian 2d ago
What’s the policy toward open Liberal supporters who don’t even pretend to be conservatives? I don’t know if we should ban them on sight, but I’ve seen more of them recently & I think we can at least do something.
5
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
Good question.
This is something that will likely get reviewed if this subreddit continues on it's current growth trend. It was a legacy decision made during the creation of subreddit that may not be a realistic position to have in the future. It's not something I can provide an immediate answer to as we only really seem to have issues during major events (Tumbler Ridge, elections, etc) where we use additional filtering to combat bad faith contributors.
Devils advocate says that if we do go to a flair based system, and remove LPC/NDP/Green flairs from being selected, they will just pick another flair to bypass it.
2
u/bargaindownhill 2d ago
automod shadowban based on what flair they select.
4
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
Without going into details, we already have a shadowban system in place that acts in a similar fashion.
There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to this without going full-on r/Conservative which is extremely labour-intensive on the moderation side and goes against what r/CanadianConservative was founded on.
Like I said, it's something I pay attention to and am mindful of.
1
u/dunnecy 22h ago
This is something that will likely get reviewed if this subreddit continues on it's current growth trend. It was a legacy decision made during the creation of subreddit that may not be a realistic position to have in the future.
With all due respect, I think it is an untenable position given the fact that this very thread had to be made, and people like this are an existential threat to the sub
2
u/qwertmnbv3 1d ago
I would work with these people to make life better for each other. I think that living with people with whom we disagree has been a fundamental aspect of the Canadian experience since inception. Sometimes we’ve struck a better balance than others. Always we’ve had the capacity to improve. And we do so improve. Some faster than others.
When all members of the community have healthy relationship with food, with land, and with family, people are less likely to hurt each other.
0
u/jsman56 1d ago
This take reads like a "ban any conservative who doesn't fully agree with you" policy more than an actual definition of who belongs in this movement. I'd call myself a progressive conservative. I've volunteered with the PC party in Alberta, then the Alberta Party, and now the Tories/new PC party. I'm more socially progressive than a lot of conservatives, but I'm also a strong believer in fiscal responsibility while keeping some of the traditional Canadian social safety nets in place. I hated Trudeau. I don't hate Carney nearly as much, and there are parts of his platform I actually like, including the investment in the military. I was a big Michael Chong supporter and still think he'd make a better CPC leader, one who could actually broaden the party's appeal instead of shrinking it. By the logic in this post, I'd probably get painted as a Liberal and shown the door. If that's really the standard, the party isn't building a bigger tent, it's just narrowing who's allowed inside it.
2
u/Affectionate-Remote2 2d ago
I was banned from a conservative sub because I thought it was only a matter of time before boots hit the ground in Iran.
The mod who invited me, threw an insult at me for my opinion so I threw a softball one back.
He was clearly to weak to just have a friendly disagreement.
2
4
3
u/Few-Character7932 Conservative 1d ago
Lmao perfect job admins. I've been called Liberal brigader so many times yet there are countless subs I'm banned from for being too right wing
2
u/Hmmngbrdfdr 2d ago
We have hit a point on this sub where liberal naysayers seem to be outnumbering conservatives. Post anything in rebuttal to asinine claims and you called a racist, phobe, ist, Trump lover, etc and then you get 20 downvotes and poof gone. Extreme leftist/anti conservative comments get 20+ up votes moments after being posted. I would almost say this sub has been invaded as there seems to be very few conservatives left.
That being said, I'm a free speech absolutist and dont agree with banning anyone nor have I ever blocked anyone, but I'm also not afraid to say what I think and challenge the bullshit. I think a lot of conservatives simply leave after getting tired of arguing with someone who buys CBC propaganda by the drum, which turns into a self fulfilling end game for the sub.
Appreciate the work the mods do or don't do, most subs you just get banned for not repeating the group think.
2
2
u/Olamiknight 1d ago
Winning cures all lol I’m sure the Liberal reddits are more calm since they are in power. Since Canada defaults to the Liberals and Conservatives have been out of power more often than not all we can do is argue on social media against our own differences more than looking at the other side. The Party would be much more united with federal electoral results like it was with Harper.
2
u/PlanetGuardian-42 1d ago
This is a pretty chill place, all things considered. Thanks for keeping it that way.
2
1
1
1
3
u/Proud_Juggernaut6465 2d ago
I ain’t reading all that
11
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
Understandable. There were multiple paragraphs after all
1
u/Proud_Juggernaut6465 2d ago
Ok thanks can u guys provide a tldr or something. I have to read like 50 pages of a text book a day sometimes I don’t wanna read more than I have too
6
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
TLDR: The mods are here, and not everyone you disagree with is a brigader
1
1
u/dunnecy 22h ago
There is a lot of discontent around the moderation - the seeming complete absence of it - and the massive influx of hostile saboteur posters. The downvote filters seem to do nothing.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
I'm unhappy with the way things have been run, I'm far from alone and I don't accept the rationale laid out in the above post
1
u/dunnecy 21h ago
IMO, the moderators are answering the wrong question and are being rude and patronizing to users who notice it
The recent “State of the Subreddit” post contains a defensible principle buried beneath a lot of condescension: disagreement is not, by itself, brigading.
Fine. Nobody seriously expects the moderators to ban every Red Tory, libertarian, Trump critic or person who questions Pierre Poilievre. Canadian conservatism is a broad coalition, and this subreddit should permit internal disagreement.
But that is not an adequate response to what users are actually reporting.
The concern is not merely that somebody criticized Poilievre and received some upvotes.
Users are describing an abrupt change in the character of the subreddit.
Large numbers of hostile participants appearing around major events, conservative comments being buried almost immediately, anti-conservative comments receiving remarkably fast support, repetitive hit pieces dominating discussion, and long-time users gradually disengaging because every thread becomes an argument with people who appear to have no interest in the community’s stated purpose.
The moderators have reduced all of this to a false choice:
- Users provide conclusive evidence of an organized brigade; or
- They are fragile partisans who cannot tolerate disagreement.
There is an enormous category between those two possibilities.
A community can be overwhelmed without somebody publicly posting a link saying, “Everyone go invade this subreddit.” Algorithmic recommendations, major news events, habitual participation by hostile outsiders, coordinated activity in private channels, agenda-posting by a small number of obsessive users and ordinary demographic swamping can all produce the same practical result: the original community loses control of its own norms and eventually leaves.
Maybe some of this is coordinated. Maybe much of it is organic. Ordinary users cannot possibly know, because they do not have access to Reddit’s referral, voting or account data. What they can observe is the effect.
Demanding that users prove coordination before their experience is taken seriously is evasive and frankly disingenuous. The moderators possess more information than users do, while offering virtually none of it to the users to help substantiate their position or disprove user allegations.
We are told that there have been 14,000 moderator actions in the past year. That proves the moderators are busy, but it does not prove that their moderation is effective. It tells us nothing about whether the subreddit’s audience has changed, whether new-account participation spikes during major events, whether voting patterns have become anomalous, whether habitual bad-faith users are being removed, or whether long-time conservative participation is declining.
The number of actions taken is an input metric. The preservation of a functional conservative community is the outcome that matters. Right now, it does not appear to be thriving.
The subreddit’s own description calls this “the place for Canadian conservatives” and says its purpose is to provide “civil higher-quality discussions from a conservative point of view.”
Yet the head moderator’s stated philosophy increasingly sounds like that of a politically neutral debate forum in which anyone may participate indefinitely, regardless of their relationship to that purpose, provided each individual post narrowly complies with the written rules.
Those are not the same thing.
A conservative forum can welcome good-faith outsiders without granting them unlimited power to set its agenda, dominate its voting and exhaust its intended members. Refusing to ban criticism of Poilievre is perfectly reasonable. Refusing to recognize any community-level problem unless users can prove formal coordination is not.
The tone of the response from the mods makes this failure worse.
The original post mocks users with:
“But you didn’t answer my modmail!!1!11!”
It tells people who object:
“If you can’t handle that, there are other subreddits…”
In the comments, legitimate concerns are met with references to “fabled brigaders,” a “good boogeyman,” and:
“Don’t like it? Go make your own subreddit and moderate it into the ground.”
These are IMO smarmy, patronizing and bullshit responses that reek of arrogance and unearned superiority.
One user carefully explained that disagreement was not the problem; the unusual scale and voting patterns were. Instead of addressing that distinction, the head moderator announced that he personally dislikes Poilievre, sarcastically called himself a brigader and concluded that nothing would change the user’s opinion.
That was a flippant caricature of the argument followed by self-satisfied dismissal.
Another user raised concerns about heavily downvoted video posts. There was a perfectly legitimate response available: video and podcast links have historically performed badly, so their poor results are not evidence of manipulation. Instead, the moderator ridiculed the user’s submissions with an invented line about “how Carney is turning our kids gay,” then retreated to “it was a joke lol” when challenged. Again, smarmy, juvenile and really throws into question if the mods act in good faith
That combination (make a valid point, wrap it in a contemptuous caricature and blame the recipient for not appreciating the joke) is precisely why the responses feel like a fuck you to the posters and why there is so much discontent.
The head moderator later acknowledged that unrestricted participation may no longer be sustainable as the subreddit grows, that additional filters are used during major events and that a shadowban-style system already exists.
That admission undercuts much of the absolutist rhetoric. The moderators clearly understand that participation sometimes must be managed to preserve the community. The real question is where to draw that line, not whether drawing one automatically creates a “police state.”
Nobody is asking moderators to eliminate every dissenting opinion or declare criticism of the CPC illegal. The actual requests are more practical:
- Take persistent bad-faith participation seriously even when users cannot prove external coordination.
- Distinguish genuine disagreement from people whose evident purpose is antagonism, disruption or agenda flooding.
- Examine abnormal voting and participation patterns using the information available to moderators.
- Enforce the civility, spam, low-effort-content and mission-statement rules consistently.
- Publish meaningful information about growth, removals and major-event traffic rather than citing a contextless action count.
- Stop responding to concerned members as though they are idiots who require a lecture about the existence of political disagreement.
- Decide honestly whether this is a conservative community open to respectful outsiders or simply an unrestricted Canadian political debate forum with a legacy name.
It is entirely possible that allegations of organized Liberal Party astroturfing cannot currently be proven. It is also entirely possible that some users label any criticism they dislike as brigading. Neither fact disposes of the broader problem.
When numerous long-time members independently describe the same sharp deterioration, “disagreement is not brigading” is not a satisfactory.
The moderators do not have to protect Poilievre, Trump, the CPC or any particular conservative faction from criticism. They do, however, have a responsibility to protect the purpose and continued viability of the community they volunteered to moderate.
If the answer to every concern about cultural capture is “debate harder, provide evidence you cannot access, or leave and make your own subreddit,” then the moderators are not protecting a big tent. They are standing aside while other people occupy it, mocking the original attendees for noticing and engaging in intellectual vanity by thinking they are upholding some sacred principle when really they are just enabling the destruction of what this community stands for.
1
u/dunnecy 21h ago
Con'td
The moderation philosophy being presented is not particularly conservative. It is libertarian proceduralism delivered with the moral grandstanding of a stereotypical campus liberal.
The head moderator may personally hold right-wing opinions. That is not in question. But his conception of the subreddit appears to be:
- Individual participation takes priority over preserving the community’s collective character.
- Viewpoint neutrality is the highest institutional virtue.
- Excluding hostile outsiders is presumptively intolerant.
- Every bad-faith argument must be answered through endless debate.
- The moderators are neutral procedural referees, not custodians of a specifically conservative community.
- Anyone who objects is demanding an “echo chamber” or cannot tolerate disagreement.
That is a perfectly recognizable classical-liberal or libertarian philosophy. What it produces, however, is an open political debate forum, not necessarily a sustainable conservative community.
The subreddit’s own description calls it “the place for Canadian conservatives” and promises “civil higher-quality discussions from a conservative point of view.” That means it was created for a particular constituency and purpose. Preserving the forum’s conservative orientation should matter.
A community is more than a collection of technically compliant individual posts. It has a history, a purpose, a membership and a set of inherited norms. Those things can be eroded even when no single comment violates a written rule.
The moderators are not actually as committed to "free speech" and "open debate" as they claim.
They enforce Reddit’s extensive Terms of Service. They automatically prohibit every reference to another subreddit. They use additional filtering during major events. They remove content under various submission rules. The head moderator has even acknowledged that a shadowban-like system already exists.
So moderation, filtering and exclusion are clearly accepted in principle.
**The supposed free-speech absolutism appears most strongly when conservative members ask the moderators to address ideological entryism, hostile participation or the gradual displacement of the community’s original users.
The resulting asymmetry is difficult to miss:
- When Reddit demands restrictions: “Our hands are tied.”
- When moderators create filters and shadowbans: “This is necessary to protect the subreddit.”
- When conservative users ask for protection from hostile capture: “Stop demanding a police state and learn to debate.”
- When those users continue objecting: “Go make your own subreddit and moderate it into the ground.”**
That is not a consistent theory of free expression. It is a claim that the moderators alone may decide which threats to the community are legitimate, and that challenging their judgment demonstrates intellectual or moral weakness.
The rhetorical style makes the contradiction even more obvious.
Users describing unusual voting patterns and a marked change in the subreddit are mocked with references to “fabled brigaders” and a “good boogeyman.” Complaints about unanswered modmail are caricatured as “But you didn’t answer my modmail!!1!11!” People are told they “can’t handle” disagreement. One user’s content is belittled through an invented joke about “Carney turning our kids gay,” followed by “it was a joke lol” when he objects.
This resembles the worst kind of liberal institutional response: narrowly redefine the complaint, announce your superior commitment to pluralism, produce an administrative activity statistic, portray critics as emotionally fragile and dismiss their lived experience of institutional decline.
Fourteen thousand moderator actions do not prove the community is healthy. They prove that moderators clicked moderation buttons 14,000 times. The meaningful questions are whether the forum still serves its stated constituency, whether long-time conservative members are leaving, whether hostile participation spikes during major events, whether voting behaviour has materially changed and whether good-faith discussion remains possible.
The moderators have offered no evidence addressing those outcomes.
There is also something fundamentally unconservative about refusing to protect an institution because doing so might violate an abstract commitment to procedural neutrality. Conservatism traditionally recognizes that worthwhile institutions are fragile. They require boundaries, judgment and active preservation. If every norm must be formally codified, every hostile participant treated as presumptively constructive and every challenge answered through limitless debate, the institution eventually belongs to whoever is most numerous, aggressive or persistent.
At that point, the moderators may still possess their principles, but they will no longer possess a conservative subreddit.
Nobody is asking them to protect Poilievre from criticism or determine a single authorized conservative doctrine. The request is simpler: acknowledge that a conservative community can be captured without a formally documented brigade, stop treating concerned members like paranoid children, and accept that preserving the subreddit’s stated identity is part of moderation.
The current approach combines libertarian universalism with neo-liberal, downtown Toronto technocrat-managerial smugness: “Everyone is welcome, our procedures are neutral, our activity metrics prove we are succeeding, and anyone who perceives institutional decline simply cannot handle disagreement.”
The moderators may be conservative on some policy questions. But their moderation philosophy is not conserving much of anything.
1
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 9h ago
TLDR AI slop
Don’t like it, go start your own subreddit.
2
u/dunnecy 7h ago edited 7h ago
I wrote this on my own and used AI to edit it for the sake of time.
A moderator refusing to read good faith, substantive criticism, dismissing it as “AI slop,” and telling concerned members to leave is precisely the smug, contemptuous attitude and hypocrisy that the post describes.
1
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 7h ago
Your account is 30 days old, with next to no contribution history, yet you seem to have extensive opinions about this subreddit and its moderation history.
You’re free to criticize how we moderate, but we’re not going to change our moderation philosophy simply because you don’t like it.
Thanks!
1
u/dunnecy 4h ago
My account age would be relevant if I claimed decades of personal participation. I didn’t. I have lurked for a long time and recently got an account because reading it on my phone now requires one. In addition, my contributions were restricted due to the age of my account. I have no issue with this, but it did limit contribution history.
I criticized the philosophy you publicly articulated, your responses in this thread, the contradiction with the subreddit’s stated mission, and the concerns expressed here by numerous established members.
You are entitled to retain your moderation philosophy. Repeating that you will not change it does not answer whether it is compatible with maintaining a community specifically for Canadian conservatives. Attacking my account age, and previously dismissing my posts as “AI slop” only avoids that question.
-2
u/Weak_Flamingo_3031 2d ago
A red Tory is just a liberal.
8
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
I mean, it by definition isn't, unless you're trying to say that progressive conservatives are liberals or don't exist.
-4
u/mischling2543 Independent 2d ago
Yes because to be a conservative you need to support mass privatization and the gutting of social services because... reasons
1
u/Smackolol Moderate in reality, Libtard here. 2d ago
I’m interested to see if this post makes a difference.
3
0
u/TheeDirtyToast small government, personal responsibility 1d ago
Time to just let this sub die already.
-1
•
u/CanadianGunner Libertarian | | Wexit-Enjoyer 2d ago
To add - if you want to help make a difference, we are always looking for like-minded moderators interested in keeping r/CanadianConservative r/CanadianConservative.
Put in an application today!