Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.

As far as I am concerned... You saw an opportunity to spread your big bad looter propaganda crap and everyone in archaeology is jumping on the band wagon against these dreaded pot hunters and who's to say you won't desecrate them yourselves to make the public look bad again in the light of all your media attention and cover up operations talking about the federal government and state police. The FBI Art Crime Team is a joke. They wouldn't even know a real art crime tip if it jumped up and stabbed them in the ass with a 16th century sword. They only investigate what the government tells them to. Same as your state inspector generals and those also of your federal agencies. I'm just saying the truth here. A national memorial in Bradenton, Florida is living proof just how much these people care about our national heritage. They don't. When the EPA spent 34 million dollars to destroy an eligible national historic site portrayed in our national rotunda and they did zero to stop it. No sale
Yes

I find it ironic Andre that you asked for my discretion when you were worried that making public the concerns you shared with me would have an adverse impact on your potential employment situation several years ago. Remember? Hypocrite much? And despite the widely acknowledged successes electorally and policy wise of the AFL during my tenure you have taken multiple occasions to say how dumb and unreasonable I've been. Please be specific.
Yes

There is a difference between concealed tats and visible tats. I am in favor of banning tats from view in the workplace because while a happy teddy bear at is inoffensive, I don't want the drama of some moron expressing their alliance with the KKK in ink.
Yes