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.
--------
Question: Comment: Kag, you are exactly right. I should have mentioned that Stefanini was not in a relationship  when he was nominated.  Two theories, equally repugnant, were advanced to explain the Vatican's refusal to accept him:
1.  France had recently legalized same-sex marriage.
2.  Stefanini could have -- gasp! -- choosen to marry while serving as ambassador.

Answer: Non-threat


Question: Comment: Yep. It's good to know which right wingtards are anti-woman.

Answer: Non-threat


Question: Comment: Tell yourself anything.  Your initial observations consisted of an attempted 'disconnect' between what I criticized and what I WAS criticizing in order to place my criticisms in a 'rhetorical vacuum' where you'd be free to shriek and flail about the TONE of my criticisms; combined with an anti-Muslim stereotype as a 'parting shot'.  And I'm supposed to take this seriously because...?

But the strategy of holding someone accountable for the damage they inflict on others is as old as human society.  Clearly damage can be inflicted by WORDS.  Example: at the beginning of the tuna processing industry those marketing this new product promulgated a deceptive ad stating that tuna didn't turn pink in the can like salmon did.  EXTREMELY damaging to salmon canneries at the time, as customers who never thought twice about salmon's color were led to believe there was something wrong with it on the basis of a single (implied) lie.

Dumbitchski's "implied lie" is called SLANDER.  It's actionable.

Answer:
Non-threat