In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Example Input: Comment: What a mega waste of borrowed money! All Trudeau needed to do was talk to former PM Jean Chretien on the airplane about it. We all remember how Chretien killed the GST. He is the expert. Harper actually kept more promises. Stupid ones like the gun registry and wheat board come to mind. The GST is something Trudeau never promised to touch, but the party owes us closure. It would actually help get the economy back to abolish GST and cancel some obsolete programs like the RRSP disaster.

With Carbon taxes planned, the GST promise Chretien made could finally be honoured. Why do they call politician honourable when they're not?
Example Output: Non-threat

Example Input: Comment: If "M" signifies "master", and "confined to the kitchen" id's you as "woman", then it may well be "a sinful evil". Master signifies male and "in control", as in "mastery over...". By CDF criteria this is contrary to the submissive servitude nature of "the feminine" "...in the church AND in the world" , and thus obviously willful and therefore objectively and intrinsically evil.
However...if you are a male, then congratulations.
Example Output: Non-threat

Example Input: Comment: "dominant characteristics of left-liberal thought are all here"
My response was a bit over the top, but you obviously didn't get that I was calling out the vapid generalizations in your first post since you've upped the ante with even MORE vapid generalizations.
This, more than any specific argument, will drag us back into the dark ages.
But carry on, your team needs you...
Example Output:
Non-threat