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.

[EX Q]: Comment: Caldwell is trying to bankrupt this city before he leaves office.
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: When will the fans know when the "social issues" have satisfactorily been addressed so the nonsense kneeling stops? How will that be measured?
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: Sure, Horgan. We all believe the NDP is 100% behind LNG (now), when they were uniformly against it before the election. Just pretending doesn't count, John. (And how stupid do you think voters are? At least those outside the LMD have you figured out).

Let's see some actual incentives, instead of just a bunch more conditions. Typical left-wingers stating that they want development, but make it virtually impossible to get approval or make a project profitable (Profit? For a corporation? Egad we can't go there, let's tax them more).

Maybe Site C power on the cheap for such a project (oh, I forgot, you and the greens are against Site C). I don't believe anything the NDP says these days - they are all just so desperate to hold on to power by their fingertips. Yet if there was some green energy mega project proposed (other than Site C), the greens and NDP would be falling all over themselves in providing subsidies and fast tracking it. Cue the usual NDP apologists.
[EX A]:
Non-obscene