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.

Comment: You seem to ignore the facts. There were 32,000 terrorist attacks by muslims against the rest of the world in the last 15 years.  And even the Quebec mosque murders was not a terrorist attack.  How many buddhist attacks have you seen? Or even christian attacks?  To my knowledge the number is 0.  With such a high number of attacks by one single religion,  you really expect that muslims will be perceived in a good light?  Many times we deal with people, we dont even know their religion. It's never written on their foreheads.  So people like you instead of playing the offended should concede that there is a huge problem with islam.  And you should sympathize with anyone who is against this violence, and this hate against the rest of the world by muslims.  We need protection from muslims since they have showed how dangerous they are.
Non-obscene

Comment: Sue his ass amen! The PERMANENT fund dividend is based off a system that replenishes its self every year. If we don't have as good of a year then the PFD would be less. Based off a 5 year average. He wants to cut the money that we would be putting back into the economy to bail out the states fuck ups. How about the state pay for there own mistakes and stop with all the dump road projects like upgrading our high way to 6-8 lanes. We don't need that. Slow down take your time or drive a different rout. Or all the money there wasting on bridges to no where. Or there own salaries. Don't cut the PFD.
Obscene

Comment: Funny, no parliamentary motion to quell the Quebec imam who preaches for the extermination of the "accursed Jews."

Obscene