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.

Comment: How about "Prehistoric Illiterate Ex-Siberian Invaders" Day? No one is indigenous to this continent.
Non-obscene

Comment: The best SA troll? If there's a benefit to that title then maybe the answer is yes.  Getting back to your original question.   I'm not trying to get votes, I'm not trying to win friends and influence people, I'm not trying to raise capital for investments, I'm not trying to sell you a product or service.  I do it for entertainment.  It's fun.
Non-obscene

Comment: Instead of clergy, especially archbishops such as Hart, martyrially defending the Tradition of the seal of confession, he, and others, rather, should be making 2 things very clear to anyone who may be considering coming to confession: 1) that mutually abusive clerical confessions do NOT result in the absolution of sins because it is an abomination of the sacrament (if abusive priests are paranoid enough about the state of their souls because of their abuse, to confess it, then they might also be paranoid enough to fear damnation because of, therefore, un-absolved sins); 2) that any absolution of child abuse sins in confession will be completely dependent on the abuser recognising that their ‘sin’ is also as a ‘crime’ and, therefore, an activity that needs to also be ‘confessed’ to the police as well, and/or reported by the priest hearing the confession. Doing so would also say, the needs of the abused come before Tradition and the canoncial requirement of  'priestly/brotherly' support.

Non-obscene