In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

[EX Q]: Comment: Russell did three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was taught that the solution to disagreement is through violence, and that Asians and persons of Islamic beliefs are bad or evil, and are in some twisted way a threat to our country. Since leaving the military he suffered a serious head/brain injury, and is under the care of the Veterans Administration. These facts do not excuse his racist outrage, but somewhat explain how he came to be the tormented individual that he is.
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: Definitely NOT.  Besides your ignorantly equating Christianity and Islam as being equivalent or the same when they are not, one, people indulging in their private sexual predilections, that does nothing but give them cheap thrills, is not the same as religion,  particularly Christianity which is the foundation of civilization in Europe and the United States. Comparing what people do with their wing ding or other body crevices with Christianity is highly asinine.  Two, there is no civil right to engage in any sexual behavior you want to engage in, based on nothing but just because you feel like it.  Necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality must be allowed also based on that.

But why the cherry picked hatred of Christianity and Islam?  Buddhism and Hinduism are ok, but Christianity and Islam are not?   Based on what do you make that distinction?  Is that based solely upon whether some let you do whatever you feel like doing and some don't?  That would be a myopic, self absorbed basis.
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: The guy should have overlooked a safety issue that killed people. Kill someone, no big deal. Hurt the environment and you will be crucified.
[EX A]:
Threat