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.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: I don't appreciate either the writing (such as it is) or the sentiment.  The writing style is incoherent because these selfish individuals don't have any arguments to rationalize their presumed "privilege" to place wildlife and other human users of our rapidly fragmenting wilderness at risk.

Typical of the entitlement mentality crowd, it's all about THEM. Fact is once a bear has been aggravated into attacking a person, it's almost always destroyed because of the entirely rational concern the bear will subsequently be less afraid of humans after attacking one and coming away unscathed (which is usually the case). And this nose-ringed nitwit's solution? She'll wear a "don't kill the bear" tattoo! Yay.  THAT oughtta help.

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."--R. A. Heinlein

Output: Non-obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Like the popup ad here in CB says: "Ignorance is Toxic"

I'll just let you continue blabbing your misinformation but abridge my comment to "HK has more autonomy than any other major China city."

BTW...writing this from HK, overlooking Victoria Harbour right NOW.

Output: Non-obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: The key word here is "imagine."

Fifty actual conservative national security veterans are courageous enough to warn the nation that Trump is a dangerous crackpot.

With no such warning about Clinton, who has actually served as Secretary of State, Dr. Hanson is reduced to imagining such a letter.  Must be a slow day at the Hoover Institution.


Output: Non-obscene