Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: Brian, thanks for very well written, but also disturbing, piece. You defend yourself very well against protestors and some iconic straw-man "the left" who accuse you, ironically, of believing what your candidate says he believes. 

Will your vote determined by some angry protestors and "the left?" I certainly don't call you racist, sexist, or ignorant. But I do ask, will you vote for a man who says what Mr. Trump says about Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, and women? Who ignores decades of foreign policy, and jumps to dangerous conclusions repeatedly? Who promises to deport 11 million people? Who would exclude immigrants on the basis of religious beliefs? You redefine him as "a fighter." Do you just disbelieve everything he says? 

And I'd join you, whole heartedly, in objecting to the name calling, polarizing, demeaning, common-enemy tactics of those protesters.  ... if you weren't using them to defend a man whose campaign has ridden those same tactics to unprecedented levels.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: hey, y'all still there?  i'm not liking the limited character feature.  I know some posts get overly long  - surely some of mine do - but let people just pass on it if they choose.  to want to add  truly 3 or 4  more words, or even letters, to a post and be stopped, stinks.   and still not liking the peer review stuff - I think it is most likely a click click reaction from most users by now.
[A]: No


[Q]: Ugh. That True guy is the worst. He created some fantasy about an indigenous people steeped in Noble Savage-style racism, then ran himself to death because he didn't want to grow up. Should not be famous and definitely should not be thought of as a good example worthy of study. And the "minimalist" trend is over, now we're on to something equally stupid.
[A]:
Yes