In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Ex Input:
Comment: Do these people really need formal "training" to know that telling someone you thought about her in the shower is inappropriate?

How about telling them on their first day in Washington "Telling colleagues or staffers you find them physically attractive, asking them to have a sexual relationship with you, telling stories or jokes regarding sex, or sharing your fantasies about them or anyone else is stupid, unprofessional behavior and will not be tolerated, but may be recorded and shared with your spouse, constituents and the press. Looking for love here is the wrong place and you need to deal with personal issues and needs away from this institution. Treat everyone you encounter in these halls as you want your spouse, child or parent to be treated." It's not all that complicated, and it's sad anyone even needs to have this much explanation about appropriate conduct in a workplace.

Ex Output:
Non-threat

Ex Input:
Comment: Vancouver was thinking it was a good idea to pass a law mandating snow tires- but only if there was snow on the ground?

How on earth was that law going to be enforced? Who was going to enforce it? How were people going to comply? Check the weather then break out the jack?

Two questions arise in my mind-

1- Did the author completely miss the actual wording of the proposed law? Because surely a law like that could not have actually been proposed, right?

2- If the author's research was accurate, it beggars the question: How do people that stupid actually get elected?

Ex Output:
Non-threat

Ex Input:
Comment: I would love to look five years into the future to see what that $300 million turns in to.

My guess, a bunch of crap.

Ex Output:
Non-threat