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.

[Q]: Comment: Indeed it is screwed up...and it was the liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever it is that they are calling themselves to evade taking any responsibility...who screwed it.
[A]: Obscene


[Q]: Comment: Oh shit, they've caught on......NOOOOO! Well, time to go to the next city and shit all over it then wonder what possibly could have transpired?
[A]: Obscene


[Q]: Comment: Thanks for your reply, Pat.  I did look at the site you posted and, as you probably suspect, I disagree with most of it.
1. While clumsily stated, it's already a fairly Catholic notion.  
2. God revealed Himself as "Father," and Jesus was certainly male.  Using "inclusive language" is not a translation of anything, then, but a re-write that holds not even a tenuous grasp on that which was originally written.  In addition, it would make the reading clumsy and prone to all sorts of error. The remainder of this tenant also rejects the very first of the Decalogue - not good at all!
3. Earth is not mom.  It is not a being in any sense of that word.  We must be good stewards of resources but for the sake of others, not for the sake of an anthropomorphic planet.
4. While the words are English, the statement makes no sense.  It appears to be written to sound important but there is no logical cohesiveness to the various phrases.
5. Honestly, psychobabble, IMO.
[A]:
Non-obscene