In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

[EX Q]: Comment: Don't ya find it odd that many in our Government have offShore bank accounts yet do not want business to have the same and are willing to slap a 20% tax on that . I wonder if Donald and his Rich ass buddies would be willing to pay a 20% excise Tax on all their hidden Billions .... The Hypocrisy is astounding .. They talk Home Grown while banking major cash in Tax Havens across the globe .. and we as Americans BUY THE LIE ...Why .
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: Definitely NOT. Besides your ignorantly equating Christianity and Islam as being equivalent or the same when they are not, one, people indulging in their private sexual predilections, that does nothing but give them cheap thrills, is not the same as religion, particularly Christianity which is the foundation of civilization in Europe and the United States. Comparing what people do with their wing ding or other body crevices with Christianity is highly asinine. Two, there is no civil right to engage in any sexual behavior you want to engage in, based on nothing but just because you feel like it. Necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality must be allowed also based on that.

But why the cherry picked hatred of Christianity and Islam? Buddhism and Hinduism are ok, but Christianity and Islam are not? Based on what do you make that distinction? Is that based solely upon whether some let you do whatever you feel like doing and some don't? That would be a myopic, self absorbed basis.
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: This article, despite its brevity is so full of stereotypes that it is hard to read. The deep-pocketed evil Catholic Church (I.e. Bishops and clergy) and evil Boyscouts vs the pure-bright-light-knight-in-shining-armour Girlscouts and acting-moral-compass-sisters. It is clear that those opposing the extension of statute of limitation were more than the evil Boyscouts and RCC bishops. The fact that the compass-of-justice advocate decided to mention only these two (not to mention that she failed to give their actual and not only some wink-wink, nudge-nudge reasons) is presenting partial truth as the whole truth, which is simply called lying.

I can only imagine, how sad public schools (among the miriad of others) were about this ruling... or are they completely off limit in these matters? Or is it that taxpayers money cannot be taken as compensation, only Church money donated by little old ladies?
[EX A]:
Non-threat