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.

Example Input: Comment: NO, stop pulling us into this crap.
Example Output: Obscene

Example Input: Comment: Trolls should stay under the bridge.
Old tactic; if you can't refute the message - attack the messenger
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: I agree that epithets such as "conservative" and "progressive" can be inaccurate or reductive or misleading, but I don't agree that they're always useless. In the cases of e.g. Joseph Ratzinger and even more perhaps Henri de Lubac, we find an early, challenging pattern of innovation led to a ready acceptance of the way things have always been. We see that the Lubac-inspired "Lumen gentium" might have looked radical with its talk of the "people of God" and the dignity of the laity, but it's hardly a manifesto of revolution; and in fact it seems easily to have supported JPII's empowerment of the conservatives, including the hierarchalism and arch-sacerdotalism of Benedict XVI and even Raymond Burke (mein Gott!).

I was only suggesting something, but don't claim to know. For my part, I don't find Teilhard interesting, and see him through the eyes of disappointed biologists, e.g. Stephen Jay Gould, who accused Teilhard as being the nefarious evil genius behind the Piltdown Conspiracy.
Example Output:
Non-obscene