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.

Ex Input:
Comment: The question I have for BLM is: why aren't you hijacking and staging a sit-in at Toronto's Caribbean Festival Parade in August to highlight your message and agenda? It would seem like you would have a far more receptive and understanding audience there.
But no. BLM is blatantly using Pride because it is a bigger, broader, more popular and better-attended event. BLM absolutely does not care at all about the gay community; if so, they would be highlighting the homophobia and anti-gay violence in Caribbean and African counties, where gays have absolutely no rights at all.
The police absolutely must be allowed to march in next year's Pride parade. And BLM, by having violated the rules on parade participation on Sunday, must be banned.

Ex Output:
Non-obscene


Ex Input:
Comment: These are not the words our "globalist" PM needs to be told.  These will just fill his egotistical head with even more visions of grandeur. 

He needs to be told to stop giving away billions of  Canadian tax money in pursuit of his Nobel Peace Prize, and to start paying attention to the many real problems in Canada.

Ex Output:
Non-obscene


Ex Input:
Comment: I don't care if they lose their money either. It couldn't happen to nicer people. But I am still allowed to express the opinion that they are being idiots falling for one of the most dangerous fallacies in economics and that this will come to bite them in the ass. In this regard I highly advise everybody to NOT invest in fossil fuel shares - it's a great way to lose your life savings very soon.

Now here's the clencher - if we actually wanted to - we could have 100% clean energy supply around the world in mmm, 5 years, it's a far smaller project than going to the moon in 10 and we pulled THAT off. It will cost a fraction of that - and this one is guaranteed to be a profitable excercise so in the end the actual cost is negative. 

And how convenient is it that, when we do that, the oil in existing locations will be able to supply our remaining needs for centuries to come - so no need to go ruin the arctic any further. By the time we run out, we won't be using it anymore.

Ex Output:

Obscene