Q: 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.
Comment: I find it interesting that when a black person is the killer, the subject of race is automatically raised. When a Muslim is the shooter, of course, the first consideration is to label him a "terrorist". When a white guy is the mass killer he becomes a "lone wolf" or the generalized "gunman", or a "distraught" individualeven depicted by the President as some sort of abstract "pure evil" a "sick INDIVIDUAL".
The point of the editorial is NOT to deny that black people kill other people, or that there is no such thing as an "islamic terrorist". The point is how knee-jerk the characterization of shooters has become based upon race or religion or ethnicity.
We white American Christians get a pass when one of our own goes on a killing spree. He's a "lone wolf". NOT one of us. Of course he's NOT one of us.
A:
Non-obscene