instruction:
Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
question:
So suck it up and order it with less ice. My goodness people complain over the most stupid things!
answer:
Yes


question:
Yes, that is the review process we go through to comment. The three comments we see are determined by random chance, not by topic, author of the comment, or social psychology. The idea is you take a step back, look at some other random comment in another thread (with a click available to catch context), and rate that one as civil, or not. 

I don't know about social engineering, that may be a bit too grandiose. I think of it as all of us pitching in to moderate, instead of depending on one person, or some software to screen words and phrases. We each spend our 10 second, and the system works better. I hope.
answer:
No


question:
For PETA, catching fish is 'animal abuse'.  

For some Hindus, a different religion,  killing mosquitos is forbidden.   

For some Hindus,  the doctrine of Ahimsa  discourages wanton destruction of nature including wild and cultivated plants. Hermits (sannyasins) are urged to live on a fruitarian diet so as to avoid the destruction of plants.

Choose your religion.
answer:

No