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: Well you can take that commie crap right back the USSR, comrade!

Output: Obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Jones has no "style", just rant.

If Coulter modified her style, she'd be taken more seriously by what some would call Mainstream people presumably those giving "funnies" here--and with a good degree of validity. She makes some great observations about her country, its policies and people. Trouble is, she does it with a sledge-hammer.

Output: Non-obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Mr. Taylor,

I am astounded, based upon your comments, that you were at one time a Witness and an elder.   The following response is based upon the paradigm that there is a Creator and that Creator is the author of the Bible.  If you do not accept this view, then please ignore my comments.  

It is the height of absurdity and arrogance to presume that humans have a "right" to a peaceful Earth given their disobedience and rejection of God's rule.  You presume two hugely presumptuous precepts in your argument.  The first is that the being that created the universe could not control physical conditions on Earth, including flora and fauna, if he chooses to and the second that man has a right to God's continued protections though rejecting him.  

Scientifically your comment is naive.  The second law of physics states that all closed systems will move toward decay (entropy), not order.  We have rejected God and our "closed system" is moving to decay without his intervention.


Output: Non-obscene