instruction:
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.
question:
Comment: That's a nice story, except that it's not true. I was very surprised when I heard Kershaw wasn't starting. Like I said, Darvish looked like crap in game 3, and his eyes looked lost. No way I would have started him in a game 7 with Kershaw available. And again, the metrics on Darvish vs. the Astros are pretty astounding. Frankly, I wouldn't even have put Darvish on the roster for the WS, given his history with the Astros.
answer:
Obscene

question:
Comment: Correct me if I am wrong, but following criticism in these comments, I no longer see the perp described as a "white man" in this story.

(However, he continues to be described as a"white man" in a related story here.)

Let me know whether I just missed the white descriptor on second reading.
answer:
Non-obscene

question:
Comment: Volodymyr here, thank you for the article however I said "aspiring Bolshevik comissars" not "aspiring bullshit comissars"
answer:
Obscene