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.

Example Input: Comment: Morneau is using the left wing buzzword "fair". Thus whole exercise is about inflamming opinion in the hope that the " soak the rich" crowd votes liberal instead of ndp, which makes your position particularly hypocritical
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: You must be a renegade from a Donald Trump fact finding mission. IF ever I've read fake news, obfuscation and a lie, this is it.
Example Output: Non-obscene

Example Input: Comment: Wow. that's quite a leap in logic there Demento. It's getting clearer and clearer that your issue is about multiculturalism rather than the concept of reasonable accommodation or rational thought. My point about your fictional Japanese was that if they had rational reasons then their concerns were justified, however if their reasons were irrational then they need to be called out for it. The excuses I've seen for people not wanting a muslim cemetery are all irrational, ignorant, and fearful with no basis in reality.

It's unfortunate that you can't see the difference between those concepts and are instead caught up in some self induced echo chamber of being offended about people being called out for their prejudices.
Example Output:
Non-obscene