instruction:
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.
question:
Comment: I'd like to share a comment written in response to the article "Clarity beyond clericalism: Bishop Long at the Royal Commission" published in the Australian on-line journal "Eureka Street." The article elicited this response from one reader, who referred to Catholic schools:

"If there were a significant risk of abuse, then enrolments would have fallen off dramatically. They haven't... so I conclude this is a witch-hunt...and not a realistic assessment of any widespread problem."

To describe Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse as an unrealistic "witch-hunt" addressing a manufactured problem sounds bizarre to me. However, this commentator is not alone; there are others.

Those of us who believe Church reform is sine qua non need to be talking to these folks. Conversation can be a slow process, but if there is no meeting of minds, no willingness to listen, we're dead in the water.
answer:
Non-obscene

question:
Comment: While it's true both sides are being divisive, I suspect Mountain Peaks picked a couple of right-wing names because it's easier to twist RW rhetoric into something negative than it is LW positions.
With just a few words, you can make the Right sound heartless or that they're sucking up to the rich or that they don't care about the environment, and so on. If I were a Russian troll intent on tearing Americans apart, I would do it from the right side, just because it's so much easier (unless it's about gun control; then the left is easier to pick on).
You can pick out the real right-wing people here because they're responses sound sane. Posters like Sylvia Wyss and Obama-Sin-Laden sound like their main purpose is to piss off lefties. And while there are lefties that piss off righties, it's harder to do because lefties say things like, "Save the children or the deer or the rivers." Hard to twist that sort of thing into something negative.
answer:
Non-obscene

question:
Comment: The issue isn't about preventing men from succeeding in fields that they excel in, it's about making sure that there aren't barriers that prevent others from also succeeding and giving unfair advantage to a specific group which in many career fields traditionally has been white heterosexual males. The issue is about confronting the biases, whether conscious or not, that have lead to unequal opportunity and to level the playing field for all. It's not about punishing men.
answer:
Non-obscene