Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Ex Input:
Let's hit it, Jake

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
More intellectual dishonesty, and you accuse me of being uncivil! Once again, my words are misrepresented by a leftist who cannot construct a real argument. Has leftism so degraded your mental faculties that you are left with no other approach than the amateurish parsing of language?

I wrote, and meant, "drunken encounters that are later regretted." I'm not sure how you can extrapolate that I excuse date rape from this scenario. The fact that an encounter is "later regretted" would presume that consent was initially given, would it not? Please stop wasting my time, you aren't on my level.

As far as my tongue in cheek comment that we ship the postmodern feminist crusaders to Saudi Arabia, you would have to be autistic to take this comment at face value. You don't seem to understand sarcasm, or maybe your misunderstanding is a deliberate attempt to divert the conversation? Please explain.

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
BJ, it's funny but you and I never say that the Koch Bros. don't understand their own interests. It's always the less empowered groups that are lectured re: their own interests. You can dance around your problem- that the majority of Portlanders reject New Urbanist policies- but it still exists.

The majority of Portlanders like SFH, hence Novick's abysmal approval ratings.

I know that you are not anti-democratic, so the lack of democratic support for increased density must bother you. Fact is, New Urbansim is co-opted by those who stand to make money off greenwashing & real estate. It can and will be rejected at the polls.

Ex Output:
No