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.

[EX Q]: Comment: What's wrong with the whole UNITE the RIGHT nonsense? First, the Alberta PCs believe ABC, while the Wildrose believe AXY. There are some odd people who think that because both believe A, then union is possible. Others know that BC and XY are exclusionary terms. Either PCs or Wildrosers will be asked to give up some of their principles. And I doubt that's going to happen.

Kenney called for "severely normal" Albertans to unite. That's code for let's agree to be xenophobic, homophobic and misogynistic. Every progressive plank of the PC platform will be torn up and thrown out. And it will be hard to say how many of the voters who voted PC in 2015 will remain when you learn that a leader of a Pro-Life group has bragged she got Kenney elected leader by selling hundreds of memberships.

Kenney hates public schools. He believes God rules this country, not government. He is a climate change denier. He hates youth culture and women's rights. He's a Christian fundamentalist hardliner. Oy!
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: 4 years is a long time .....for a state with lots of nude parks.....and pre teens that want sex from older men.....when ever I am close to a pre teen girl or boy ...they try and sex me up....sex laws are bull shit
[EX A]: Obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: An interesting quote from the piece: "What's interesting here, noted a Royal Bank economist, is how the pace of mortgage borrowing is easing but Canadians are jumping into other forms of credit."

Multiple models could be proposed for why that is happening. Here is one far-out, zany, ridiculous model that could lead to that situation:

Step 1. The Vancouver and Toronto regions grow to include close to 30 percent of Canada's homes.
Step 2. The prices of those homes skyrocket to well over one million dollars from overseas money.
Step 3. Local workers there give up trying to get mortgages for dozens of times their annual salary.
Step 4. A massive drop in mortgage debt occurs because overseas money buys houses all cash down.
Step 5. Local workers, now relegated to renting, compete for expensive and rare available units.
Step 6. The high rents and very long commutes and lousy wages necessitate borrowing from banks.

Or wait a minute, is that model really far-out, zany and ridiculous?
[EX A]:
Non-obscene