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.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: In the trade fight Christy Clark is the loud talking 90 pound weakling who is going to get the crap kicked out of her by the big bad American bully.
Is this the way we want it? No, but this is the reality of the trade dispute. Nice try Clark but every one is aware that your bluster only amounts to a bucket of warm spit as far as the Americans are concerned.

Output: Obscene

Input: Consider Input: Comment: Susan, that was a wonderful editorial however clearly you haven't been paying attention to the endless stream of propaganda spewing from pot activists. If you did, you'd know that stoners are simply awesome. They wouldn't hurt a flea. They never, ever, ever, ever drive while high and if they do, they're a million times safer than regular drivers because they're so gosh darn careful. Those stories you read about the increase in accidents since pot was legalized are wrong. Legalizing pot eliminated drug crimes. Those stories about recent pot deals and shootings gone bad are lies planted by anti pot forces. The stories about stoners selling Washington pot in other states in direct violation of the law are wrong too...gosh they would never do something silly like that.

/voting against the legalization of pot was definitely in my self interest
//why do you think they call it dope?

Output: Non-obscene

Input: Consider Input: Comment: Correct if I'm wrong, but aren't you the fool who obstinately maintains that dogmatic teaching is confined to the Creed and the two Marian dogmas? Does not the Nicene Creed read: "Credo en unum Deum, Patrem {Father}omnipotentum"?
Output: Non-obscene