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.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: eat a dick,  trump.

Output: Toxic


Input: Consider Input: Comment: For the love of God, buy some humor (and self-awareness). It's satire.

Kurgan isn't actually demanding citations, OK? Think about it.

Output: Non-toxic


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Describing the City government's housing policies and goals as "weasel words" which the author does, hardly seems appropriate. Thats not because I think the Vision Council has done all they could to help with regard to controlling out of control speculation in the housing market, or providing sufficient social and rental housing. 

But to dismiss this out of hand is unfair.

 And lets remember, its not just the City government who has to be involved, but also senior levels of government. Which have been reluctant to help with social and cooperative and rental housing, and even if they talk favorably, its often more words than action. 

And we should never ever not give some of the credit for the diseaster that is home ownership and rental and social housing in Vancouver from real estate and development corporations, and ordinary citizens who saw dollar signs in their eyes when they discovered the home they bought in the 80s for $50,000 is can sell for a million.


Output: Non-toxic