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: Nice try
Obama and Clinton  killed millions in the middle east too
China has 13 trillion in real estate debt
duh
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: As a one more I ask you and others to type "Study links low intelligence and low I Q., to conservatism and prejudice". And think of what is making you and others angry. I see angry voters voted in more of the same, and kept getting b.s.'d into voting for more of the same for a few election cycles. Now the same angry voters are really mad and are going to vote for another snake oil salesman who'll really finish the job the angry voters are raising hell about. What's that saying about being able to fool some people some of the time? With some it is all of the time.
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: Mansbridge was captain of CBC's The National for decades. So, why would you consider it unfair for CBC, in revamping the post-Mansbridge The National, to choose NOT to  include  YET ANOTHER European-extract male to host the show? Wasn't decades of Mansbridge enough to justify finding another ethnic/gender mix than Mansbridge's to replace him?  Anyway, the new 4 person hosting includes the ethnicity you so value (European, 50%), and the gender you so value (male, 50%), just not together simultaneously in one individual host. So? Nitpicker, or what?
Example Output:
Non-obscene