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: What crap. I am talking about permanent oil jobs lost, you have NO clue

A: Obscene
****
Q: Comment: While it's true both sides are being divisive, I suspect Mountain Peaks picked a couple of right-wing names because it's easier to twist RW rhetoric into something negative than it is LW positions.
With just a few words, you can make the Right sound heartless or that they're sucking up to the rich or that they don't care about the environment, and so on. If I were a Russian troll intent on tearing Americans apart, I would do it from the right side, just because it's so much easier (unless it's about gun control; then the left is easier to pick on).
You can pick out the real right-wing people here because they're responses sound sane. Posters like Sylvia Wyss and Obama-Sin-Laden sound like their main purpose is to piss off lefties. And while there are lefties that piss off righties, it's harder to do because lefties say things like, "Save the children or the deer or the rivers." Hard to twist that sort of thing into something negative.

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: It boggles my mind thinking that you know how additives lower the freezing point of some items, raise them for others. You can make things grow faster, or render our dirt toxic by what you put on it. You know all about various types of pollution affecting our air...but. BUT, you suddenly stop listening when scientists tell you that they are measuring what we are pumping into the air is raising CO2 levels? Were you such a hater that you told all your friends we didn't need the ozone layer either?

A:
Non-obscene
****