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.

[Q]: Comment: You seem to ignore the facts. There were 32,000 terrorist attacks by muslims against the rest of the world in the last 15 years. And even the Quebec mosque murders was not a terrorist attack. How many buddhist attacks have you seen? Or even christian attacks? To my knowledge the number is 0. With such a high number of attacks by one single religion, you really expect that muslims will be perceived in a good light? Many times we deal with people, we dont even know their religion. It's never written on their foreheads. So people like you instead of playing the offended should concede that there is a huge problem with islam. And you should sympathize with anyone who is against this violence, and this hate against the rest of the world by muslims. We need protection from muslims since they have showed how dangerous they are.
[A]: Non-obscene

[Q]: Comment: Who gives a darn about the so called three founding nations. There is blatant bigotry and hypocrisy when that term "founding nations" is used as a smoke screen for racism. My family has been here for well over two hundred years. Does that give me license to discriminate against others? No! If ratepayer's referendums were the standard for zoning changes, NIMBYs would stop 90 of all development. In this case the referendum was invoked, because of local resistance (code word for racism) to the development. The referendum was used by weak politicians for cover.
[A]: Obscene

[Q]: Comment: I'm not allowed to cross the border anyway for something that happened in 1986. No sweat off my ass
[A]:
Obscene