In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.
--------
Question: Comment: I never expected any less from Trudeau, Liberals are corrupt.

Answer: Non-obscene


Question: Comment: Shut the fuck up you stupid bitch

Answer: Obscene


Question: Comment: "Dumb parents ruining it for the rest of the players, students and community."

Your comment makes an assumption that is no longer true - that football supplies a mutal benefit to a given player, the other players, students and the community.

Football has become a very, very valuable brass ring at the hiigh schoool level.

Worth between $80,000 and $300,000.  The value of a 4 year ride at a University, including tuition, room and board.  

If you accept the value numbers as true, can you ask ANY family or kid to give up a chance at $80,000 - $300,000 in value in sacrifice for another kid?  Other students?  Or the community?  

What if they do, and then forfeit a legitimate shot at $80,000-$300,000?  Will those other interests or entities cover?

The problem is a system that makes it a $80,000-$300,000 proposition.

That's what has to change.  Until then, you really can't blame people (especially those ill-equipped or not trained to think differently) from reaching for the brass ring.

Answer:
Non-obscene