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: Human proxies for Salman Rushdi continue to be attacked and killed in the western World by the same religion that is conducting  reciprocal mass murders in the Middle East.

Trudeau has  brought thousands into Canada and more are pouring across our borders due to relaxed visa requirements instituted by Trudeau for " mexicans".

Just in time, as Al Quada have now just perfected the lap top and iPad bomb for flights from Canada into the US.
All will be denied and Aga Khan will continue to contribute to the Trudeau Foundation and provide free holidays for the Trudeau family.

This disaster was all so easily predicted.

Yet, 40 % of canadian voters behaved like sheep to the slaughter.

How green we are..

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: I don't appreciate either the writing (such as it is) or the sentiment.  The writing style is incoherent because these selfish individuals don't have any arguments to rationalize their presumed "privilege" to place wildlife and other human users of our rapidly fragmenting wilderness at risk.

Typical of the entitlement mentality crowd, it's all about THEM. Fact is once a bear has been aggravated into attacking a person, it's almost always destroyed because of the entirely rational concern the bear will subsequently be less afraid of humans after attacking one and coming away unscathed (which is usually the case). And this nose-ringed nitwit's solution? She'll wear a "don't kill the bear" tattoo! Yay.  THAT oughtta help.

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."--R. A. Heinlein

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: Fuck Berkeley, they are irrelevant.

A:
Obscene
****