In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

Q: Comment: Really?

No question, the Chinese masterfully figure out how to copy and build cheaper. Rarely, if ever, better.

As for vested interests in fossil fuels, that is a complete red herring. In the US, fossil fuels are not revered, nor are they feared. Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk do not demand the neutering of Big Oil - he is convinced that he will beat them at their own game. In zero sum Canada, in order for one industry to prosper, another must be choked off by government.

The US understands that when a fuel source is found that beats oil and gas in terms of price, portability and energy density, then it is hasta la vista Big Oil. Until then however, all's fair.

Unlike in Canada where we persist in the fiction of thinking we are eco-laggards in  a world which is rapidly weaning itself off of oil, despite the fact of increasing, not decreasing global demand.

Our nanny state will see us getting poorer, with a few pats on the head from the eco-screamers to keep us warm.

A: Non-toxic
****
Q: Comment: Donald ur a coward and you belong in the Cook Inlet with Billwaker on a piece of plywood you worth less piece of shit

A: Toxic
****
Q: Comment: One of the biggest scams in Alaska is the lack of balance on the Board of Game. In a state where 85% of Alaskans don't hunt, not a single non consumptive user is on the board, not a single member. The Alaskan constitution states that the fish and game should be manages for all citizens, not just hunters and trappers. So it's no surprise that the BOG is constantly trying to kill the wolves and bears even if that's what the majority of Alaskans want.

A:
Non-toxic
****