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.

Example Input: 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
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: Hey Rachael, I hope you see this before the simpleton reviewers get to it..

go thoroughly fuck yourself. You are muted.
Example Output: Obscene

Example Input: Comment: "its been reported that most of the asylum seekers crossing illegally into Canada are legal US residents"

In order to seek "asylum", you need to show a personalized risk. It's got to be persecution, which is a significant interference with a core human right.

Dislike of Trump doesn't qualify.
Example Output:
Non-obscene