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

Q: You would think the author of this post, or an editor at Willamette Week, would have been able to do a simple Google search and realized:

1. There is already an article titled "Your Uber Driver Hates You," written in Sept. 2014: https://idrivesf.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/your-uber-driver-hates-you/

2. A Buzzfeed listicle titled "Ten Reasons Why Your Uber Driver Hates You" followed shortly after: http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellkontraire/ten-reasons-why-your-uber-driver-hates-you-xk61

3. To update the myriad reasons why your Uber driver hates you with one extra reason is just a lazy way to make your point.

4. Also, lists are dumb.

A: Yes
****
Q: "Thousands of New York women return each year to clinics for a third or fourth abortion. Bill Clinton's famous formulation that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" or Hillary Clinton's more recent proclamation that abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice," http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/15248/index3.html

A: No
****
Q: Bad job Rs, just like we expected. Tax the lowest income earners the most, tax the children and the disabled, tax the old and infirm, but don't tax miners, loggers, fish processors, tug boat operators from Lousyanna, oil company executives, oil workers from Oklahoma, or anyone else at the top of the income pile.

Why not add a nice regressive sales tax, so you can really hit those poor people the hardest. Maybe a nice limit on sales tax so we can really drive the point home to those low-life crybabies right? Why should the buyer of a Mercedes be expected to pay the same tax rate as the buyer of a used Corolla? Give that doctor or lawyer or other professional a break, so they can be (cue the organ music) job creators!

A:
No
****