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: How about "Prehistoric Illiterate Ex-Siberian Invaders" Day? No one is indigenous to this continent.
[A]: Non-obscene


[Q]: Comment: What a scumbag. Golovan (and nome) you ought to boot this pile of crap. He is a joke, just cause its technically legal it is immoral to pull this crap. The state has been broke for several years but this guy just kept on sucking the state tit dry.  A state employee would lose his job if they Pulled this crap. And basically that's what these clowns are...
[A]: Obscene


[Q]: Comment: I won't comment on the Alzheimer's or Dementia........ I will say it's possible that Mr. Stahl's letter misrepresented his feelings by linking Judaism and Zionism as perpetrators of a "false flag" plan to utilize anti-Semitic actions to garner support for Zionism.  IMO, there's a real difference between Judaism and "hardcore" right-wing Zionism.  I, as I note in another post, have concerns with the treatment of non-Israelis by the Zionists, but separate that from my feelings about Judaism.  IMO, the anti-Semitic actions we've seen increase since Trump's election are, in fact, the actions of, guess who....................anti-Semitic Americans.  Occam's Razor strikes again.   Gary Crum
[A]:
Non-obscene